The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that mere proximity to contraband recovered from public land, without direct possession or corroborative evidence, cannot justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act when the twin conditions of Section 37 are met. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail cannot be withheld solely on the basis of speculative inferences drawn from disclosure statements and isolated financial transactions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Amandeep S/o Shri Amarjeet, aged 23, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 66/2025 registered at Police Station Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences under Sections 8, 21, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution alleges that a quantity of 3 kg and 32 grams of heroin was dropped from a drone across the international border from Pakistan and was intended to be collected by the petitioner and co-accused persons.
Key Facts
- The contraband was recovered from barren land belonging to one Hetram Jaat, not from the petitioner’s person, residence, or vehicle.
- The petitioner was not found in actual or constructive possession of the drugs.
- The prosecution’s case rests primarily on the petitioner’s own disclosure statement and the disclosure statements of co-accused persons.
- The Investigating Officer (I.O.) testified before the court that no independent evidence connects the petitioner to the offence beyond these disclosures.
- The petitioner’s mobile call data records (CDR) show no direct communication with co-accused persons.
- A payment of Rs. 50,000 was received by the petitioner via Paytm from one Gursahib Singh, a person with whom he had prior acquaintance.
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record.
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since arrest.
Procedural History
- 15.01.2025: FIR No. 66/2025 registered at Police Station Rawla.
- 05.02.2025: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
- 10.03.2025: First bail application filed and rejected by the trial court.
- 18.04.2026: First bail application dismissed by the Sessions Court.
- 05.05.2026: First bail application filed before the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (now Section 483 BNSS) and dismissed.
- 15.05.2026: Second bail application filed before the High Court.
- 21.05.2026: Hearing concluded and order passed.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that: (i) the contraband was not recovered from his possession; (ii) no independent evidence links him to the offence; (iii) the only evidence is disclosure statements; (iv) he has no criminal antecedents; and (v) the trial is likely to be protracted.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied when the contraband is not recovered from the accused’s possession, the prosecution relies solely on disclosure statements, and the only financial link is an isolated payment from a known acquaintance.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any direct or circumstantial link between the petitioner and the contraband. The drugs were recovered from open land, not from the petitioner’s control. The disclosure statements, being the sole incriminating material, are inherently unreliable without corroboration. The Paytm transaction of Rs. 50,000 is insufficient to prove conspiracy, especially in the absence of CDR evidence linking the petitioner to co-accused. The petitioner has no criminal history and has been in custody for over 15 months, with trial likely to extend further.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor contended that the recovery of a large quantity of heroin near the international border, coupled with the petitioner’s disclosure and the Paytm transaction, establishes a prima facie case of conspiracy. The scale of the offence (over 3 kg of heroin) warrants strict bail denial under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution argued that the nature of the crime - international drug trafficking - justifies denial of bail to prevent tampering with evidence or flight.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the evidence against the petitioner and applied the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which require the court to be satisfied that: (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
"This Court further finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the contraband (heroin) was not recovered from his conscious possession."
"This Court further finds that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case primarily on the basis of his own disclosure statement and the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons."
"In the opinion of this Court, the mere receipt of an amount through Paytm from a person with whom the petitioner had prior acquaintance, by itself, cannot be considered sufficient to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence."
The Court emphasized that disclosure statements, while admissible, are not substantive evidence and cannot sustain a denial of bail without independent corroboration. The absence of CDR evidence, bank records linking the payment to drug trafficking, or recovery from the petitioner’s person or premises rendered the case weak on direct proof. The Court noted that the gravity of the offence alone cannot override the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37. The petitioner’s clean record and prolonged custody further weighed in his favor.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail. He is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the court on all hearing dates. The Court explicitly clarified that its observations are confined to the bail stage and shall not prejudice the trial court’s evaluation of evidence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disclosure Statements Alone Are Insufficient for Bail Denial
- Practitioners must challenge bail denials in NDPS cases where the prosecution relies exclusively on disclosure statements without independent corroboration.
- The burden remains on the prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond mere disclosures.
- Courts must apply Section 37’s twin conditions strictly, not mechanically, even in serious drug cases.
Financial Transactions Require Contextual Linkage
- Isolated digital payments (e.g., Paytm, UPI) to persons with prior acquaintance cannot be treated as conclusive proof of involvement in drug trafficking.
- Absence of communication logs, transaction purpose, or pattern of payments weakens the prosecution’s case.
- Defence should demand CDR analysis and transaction metadata to test the nexus alleged by prosecution.
Possession Must Be Proven, Not Assumed
- Recovery of contraband from public or third-party land does not equate to possession by the accused.
- Courts must distinguish between proximity and control in assessing guilt for bail purposes.
- This judgment reinforces State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Kunwar Singh v. State of Haryana that mere presence near contraband is not enough to deny bail.
