NDPS Act Section 29 | Confessional Statement of Co-Accused Inadmissible for Bail Denial : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that confessional statements under the NDPS Act are not admissible against co-accused, granting bail to an applicant implicated solely on the basis of such a statement. This judgment underscores the evidentiary limitations in NDPS cases and reinforces the principle that bail cannot be denied without direct evidence linking the accused to the offence.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Aman Chaudhari @ Chhotu, was arrested in connection with Case Crime No. 62 of 2026 under Sections 8/20 and 29/60 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh. The case pertains to the alleged recovery of 490.745 kg of ganja from a tractor stationed outside the house of co-accused Pushpendra. The applicant has been in custody since 7.4.2026.

Key Facts

• The applicant was implicated based on the confessional statement of co-accused Pushpendra, with no direct recovery from his possession.
• The FIR alleges recovery of 490.745 kg of ganja from a tractor outside Pushpendra’s house.
• The applicant has no criminal history, though the State pointed to a prior case under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, where a final report was submitted.
• The applicant undertook to not misuse liberty if granted bail.

Procedural History

• 7.4.2026: Applicant arrested and remanded to custody.
• Date not specified: Bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
• 7.5.2026: High Court allows the bail application.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought bail during the pendency of the trial, arguing that he was falsely implicated and that no evidence directly linked him to the offence.

The Legal Issue

The primary question was whether bail could be denied under the NDPS Act when the applicant’s involvement was established solely through the confessional statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible under the law laid down in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated, with no recovery from his possession.
• His name surfaced only in the confessional statement of co-accused Pushpendra, which is inadmissible under Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.
• The applicant has no criminal history and undertook to not misuse liberty if granted bail.
• The pendency of cases in the trial court makes early conclusion of the trial unlikely.

For the Respondent

• The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal case under Sections 504 and 506 IPC against the applicant.
• However, it was clarified that a final report had been submitted in the said case.

The Court's Analysis

The Court relied on the legal principle established in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which holds that a confessional statement of an accused is not admissible against another accused. The Court noted that:

"Nothing is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused Pushpendra."

The Court further considered the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which impose stringent conditions for granting bail in drug-related offences. However, in the absence of direct evidence linking the applicant to the crime, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize or intimidate prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on dates fixed for:
   • Opening of the case,
   • Framing of charge, and
   • Recording of statement under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.).
4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to not seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence.
5. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

The Court clarified that breach of any condition would be grounds for cancellation of bail and that this order does not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Confessional Statements Are Not Admissible Against Co-Accused

• Practitioners must note that confessional statements under the NDPS Act cannot be used as evidence against co-accused, as established in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.
• This principle limits the evidentiary value of such statements and reinforces the need for direct evidence linking an accused to the offence.

Bail Under NDPS Act: A High Threshold, But Not Insurmountable

• Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for bail, but courts may grant bail where direct evidence is lacking.
• The judgment highlights that mere implication through a co-accused’s statement is insufficient to deny bail, especially when no recovery is made from the applicant’s possession.

Compliance with Bail Conditions Is Non-Negotiable

• The Court imposed stringent conditions for bail, including undertakings to not seek adjournments and to remain present during trial.

• Practitioners must ensure strict adherence to such conditions, as breach can lead to cancellation of bail.

• Key Takeaway: This judgment reinforces that bail under the NDPS Act is not automatic but can be granted where the evidence is weak or inadmissible against the applicant.