The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a disclosure statement made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot form the sole basis for arrest or denial of bail. In a significant ruling, the Court emphasized that the absence of contraband in the petitioner’s possession and the inadmissibility of such statements under constitutional safeguards necessitate release on bail, subject to stringent conditions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vikramjeet Singh, was arrested on 18.01.2026 in connection with FIR No. 09/2026, registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The case arose from a raid conducted on 14.01.2026 at 10:15 pm at Room No. 205, Hotel Vibhawan, where 104 grams of heroin were recovered from two co-accused, Nikhil Sharma and Shiv Kumar. Neither the petitioner nor his belongings were found in possession of the contraband.
Key Facts
- On 14.01.2026, police raided Hotel Vibhawan based on secret intelligence and recovered 104 grams of heroin from co-accused Nikhil Sharma and Shiv Kumar.
- The co-accused allegedly disclosed during investigation that they purchased the contraband from the petitioner for ₹7,000/-.
- A digital payment of ₹7,000/- was traced from the co-accused to the petitioner’s bank account via Google Pay on or before 14.01.2026.
- No contraband, money, or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner’s person, residence, or vehicle.
- The petitioner was arrested solely on the basis of the co-accused’s disclosure statement and the digital transaction.
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.01.2026.
Procedural History
- 14.01.2026: Raid conducted at Hotel Vibhawan; 104 grams of heroin recovered from co-accused.
- 15.01.2026: FIR No. 09/2026 registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
- 18.01.2026: Petitioner arrested based on disclosure statement of co-accused and digital payment trail.
- 16.04.2026: Petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh seeking regular bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the arrest was unlawful as no contraband was recovered from him. The sole evidence linking him to the offence was the disclosure statement of co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which is inadmissible as a confessional statement under Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The digital payment of ₹7,000/- was circumstantial and insufficient to establish direct involvement. The petitioner, a resident of Punjab, had no prior criminal record and posed no flight risk.
For the Respondent
The State, through Additional Advocates General, contended that the petitioner was a known drug peddler supplying narcotics to local dealers. The ₹7,000/- transaction and the co-accused’s disclosure established a prima facie case. The State argued that the gravity of the offence, the petitioner’s origin from Punjab, and the risk of re-offence or witness tampering justified denial of bail. It was submitted that the petitioner might flee justice if enlarged.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that his continued incarceration without independent evidence violated his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He requested release on reasonable bail bonds and conditions.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused be arrested or denied bail under the NDPS Act solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused under Section 67, when no contraband is recovered from the accused and no other corroborative evidence exists?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 and State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta (2022) to argue that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessions under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court in Tofan Singh overruled prior judgments that treated such statements as admissible, holding that they violate Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner further cited Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) to assert that bail cannot be denied merely on the gravity of the offence or speculative fears of flight. The digital payment, without corroborative evidence of intent or transactional context, was insufficient to establish guilt.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the ₹7,000/- payment and the disclosure statement together formed a chain of circumstantial evidence indicating the petitioner’s role as a supplier. It contended that the nature of the NDPS Act required strict enforcement, and granting bail in such cases would undermine the State’s anti-drug efforts. The State also raised concerns about the petitioner’s potential to re-offend or influence witnesses, citing his origin outside Himachal Pradesh as a risk factor.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the legal framework governing bail under the NDPS Act and the admissibility of statements under Section 67. It emphasized that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh had unequivocally held that any statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be treated as a confessional statement and is inadmissible in trial. The Court quoted:
"That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act."
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court in State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta had applied this principle to grant bail where the arrest was based solely on a Section 67 statement. The Court observed that the prosecution had not adduced any independent evidence - such as surveillance footage, intercepted communications, or recovered contraband from the petitioner - to establish his involvement.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the ₹7,000/- payment alone established complicity, noting that such a transaction could have multiple innocent explanations and lacked contextual corroboration. It reiterated the foundational principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that bail is the norm, not the exception.
The Court also dismissed the apprehension of flight as speculative, noting that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and had no history of absconding. It held that such concerns could be adequately addressed through stringent bail conditions.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted regular bail subject to the following conditions: (a) furnishing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000/- with one surety of like amount, to be approved by the trial court; (b) mandatory appearance at all hearings; (c) no tampering with evidence or witness intimidation; (d) no travel outside India without prior court permission. The Court clarified that any breach of conditions would lead to immediate cancellation of bail. The order was made executable upon submission of a downloaded copy to the trial court, verifiable via the High Court’s official website.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disclosure Statements Under Section 67 Cannot Justify Arrest or Bail Denial
- Practitioners must challenge arrests or bail denials in NDPS cases where the sole link to the accused is a Section 67 statement.
- Courts are now bound to disregard such statements as legally inadmissible for establishing probable cause.
- Prosecution must independently corroborate allegations with physical evidence, digital trails, or witness testimony.
Bail Is the Norm Even in Serious NDPS Cases
- Gravity of offence alone cannot override the presumption of innocence or justify prolonged pre-trial detention.
- Courts must balance the nature of evidence, likelihood of flight, and risk of re-offence - speculative fears are insufficient.
- Stringent bail conditions (e.g., travel restrictions, appearance mandates) are preferable to incarceration.
Digital Transactions Require Contextual Corroboration
- Bank or UPI transfers alone, without evidence of intent or transactional purpose, are insufficient to prove drug trafficking.
- Defence counsel should demand detailed analysis of digital payment context - e.g., prior financial history, purpose of transfer, frequency.
- Prosecution must establish a direct nexus between payment and illegal activity, not rely on mere association.
