P&H HC Grants NDPS Bail Where Accused Was Implicated Through Co-Accused’s Disclosure Statement

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 06.10.2026

P&H HC Grants NDPS Bail Where Accused Was Implicated Through Co-Accused’s Disclosure Statement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Jobanjeet Singh @ Joban in an NDPS case after taking note of the absence of any recovery from him, the lack of material independently connecting him with the alleged offence at the bail stage, completion of investigation, filing of the challan, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial.

The petition was the accused’s second application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. His earlier bail petition had been dismissed on 29 April 2026 when the investigation was still pending. The FIR was registered at Police Station ANTF, District SAS Nagar, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Alleged Recovery of 505 Grams of Heroin From Co-Accused

• According to the prosecution, on 28 December 2025, co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gori and Sarabjeet Singh were apprehended by the police. During the personal search of Gurpreet Singh @ Gori, 505 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from a polythene bag kept in his jacket pocket.
• The present petitioner was not alleged to have been carrying the recovered contraband. Instead, Sarabjeet Singh allegedly disclosed during interrogation that the contraband had been purchased from Jobanjeet Singh. On the strength of that disclosure, Jobanjeet Singh was nominated as an accused and arrested on 28 December 2025. The investigation was subsequently completed and the challan filed.

Petitioner: No Recovery and Implication Based on Disclosure Statement

• Counsel for the petitioner argued that his implication arose from the disclosure statement of a co-accused and that no recovery whatsoever had been effected from him.
• It was further submitted that circumstances had materially changed since dismissal of the first bail petition. At that stage, investigation was pending; by the time of the second petition, investigation had concluded and the challan had been presented.
• The petitioner had remained in custody since 28 December 2025, had clean antecedents, and contended that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. Continued detention, according to the defence, would therefore serve no useful purpose.

State Opposes Successive Bail Petition

• The State opposed the application principally on the gravity of the allegations. It also stressed that this was a successive bail petition and that the earlier application had already been dismissed through a detailed order.
• According to the prosecution, the petitioner had not demonstrated any new ground or drastic change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail.

High Court Relies on Tofan Singh

• A significant aspect of the High Court’s reasoning was the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.
• The High Court noted the principle from Tofan Singh concerning disclosure statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and their evidentiary inadmissibility unless supported by independent material. The Court observed that the veracity of the disclosure statement relied upon against Jobanjeet Singh would ultimately be tested during trial.
• Importantly, the Court simultaneously noted that no recovery had ever been effected from the petitioner. At the stage of deciding bail, there was nothing on record independently connecting him with the subject crime or demonstrating his connection with the co-accused at the relevant time.
• Thus, the Court did not finally determine the evidentiary merits of the prosecution case. Rather, these circumstances were evaluated for the limited purpose of deciding whether continued pre-trial incarceration was justified.

Completion of Investigation Constituted a Fresh Circumstance

• The Court also addressed the fact that this was the petitioner’s second bail application.
• His previous petition had been dismissed, inter alia, because the investigation was pending. That position had now changed: investigation had been completed and the challan filed.
• The High Court considered this development, coupled with the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, sufficient to permit the petitioner to approach the Court afresh for bail.
• This aspect of the ruling is particularly significant for successive bail applications. The order indicates that dismissal of an earlier bail petition does not create an absolute bar against a subsequent application where circumstances relevant to continued detention have materially changed.

“Every Day Spent in Custody” May Provide Fresh Cause for Bail

• The High Court further referred to the broader principles governing pre-trial detention. It observed that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period and that a bail application can be considered on its own merits even when filed repeatedly.
• The Court also recorded that, in appropriate circumstances, every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for seeking bail.
• It emphasised the broader principle favouring bail over jail while balancing the liberty of the accused against the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention may itself justify reconsideration because detention before trial should not assume a punitive character.

High Court Grants Regular Bail

• Considering the cumulative circumstances, the High Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
• Accordingly, the petition was allowed and Jobanjeet Singh was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
• The Court nevertheless protected the prosecution by expressly permitting it to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner is found involved in any subsequent case.

Bail Order Does Not Decide the Merits of the NDPS Case

• The High Court specifically clarified that its observations were made only for deciding the bail petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the criminal case.
• This distinction is important. The ruling does not amount to acquittal, discharge, or a final finding that the petitioner had no involvement in the alleged offence. The prosecution allegations and evidentiary value of the material will remain matters for determination during trial.

Why the Judgment Is Significant

The decision brings together three important considerations in NDPS bail jurisprudence: the evidentiary limitations surrounding an uncorroborated disclosure statement, the significance of absence of recovery or other connecting material at the bail stage, and the constitutional concern against allowing pre-trial incarceration to become indefinite or punitive.

It is also relevant to successive bail petitions. Where an earlier application was rejected while investigation was pending, subsequent completion of investigation, filing of the challan, continued incarceration and the likely duration of trial may provide a materially different factual setting for reconsideration.

At the same time, the judgment should not be read as laying down that every person implicated through a co-accused’s disclosure is automatically entitled to bail. The High Court’s conclusion was based on the cumulative circumstances of this particular case.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi