The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling on bail jurisprudence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (ND & PS Act), holding that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible to deny bail. The judgment underscores that mere financial transactions or statements of co-accused cannot establish complicity without concrete evidence of conscious possession of contraband, reinforcing the principle of innocence until proven guilty.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Neeraj Singh, was arrested on 06.11.2025 in connection with FIR No. 165/2025, dated 29.09.2025, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND & PS Act at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The FIR was lodged after the police recovered 518.4 grams of heroin from a vehicle (bearing No. T0825PB5265E) during a routine check near Toll Plaza, Baloh, Bilaspur. The occupants of the vehicle, Abhi Kumar and Rahul, allegedly disclosed that the contraband was to be delivered to Aditya and Girija Sharma, who had purchased it from the petitioner. The police further alleged that Aditya had deposited ₹1,42,500/- in the bank account of Adhi Atwal on the petitioner’s instructions for the purchase of contraband.
Key Facts
29.09.2025: Police recovered 518.4 grams of heroin from a vehicle during a routine check. The occupants, Abhi Kumar and Rahul, disclosed that the contraband was to be delivered to Aditya and Girija Sharma.
06.11.2025: The petitioner was arrested based on the statements of Aditya and Girija Sharma, who alleged that the petitioner had supplied the contraband.
The police relied on financial transactions, including a deposit of ₹1,00,500/- by Aditya in the bank account of Adhi Atwal, allegedly on the petitioner’s instructions.
The petitioner has been in custody since 06.11.2025 and has no prior conviction under the NDPS Act, though a previous case is pending.
Adhi Atwal, another accused, was granted bail by the same court on 17.04.2026 in Cr.MP(M) No. 328 of 2026.
Procedural History
29.09.2025: FIR lodged under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND & PS Act.
06.11.2025: Petitioner arrested and remanded to custody.
Investigation completed: No further recovery pending from the petitioner.
Present proceedings: Petitioner filed CrMP(M) No. 1089 of 2026 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that:
The contraband was not recovered from his conscious possession.
His arrest was based solely on the inadmissible statements of co-accused.
He has already suffered eight months of incarceration without trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was:Whether the statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which is otherwise inadmissible in law, can be used to deny bail to an accused who has not been found in conscious possession of contraband?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Prashant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated as there was no evidence of conscious possession of contraband.
The petitioner’s arrest was based solely on the statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible under Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2021) 4 SCC 1).
The petitioner has already suffered eight months of incarceration and deserves bail, especially since the investigation is complete.
For the Respondent
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, opposed the bail plea, arguing that the petitioner is a drug peddler with alleged connections to co-accused.
The prosecution relied on financial transactions (₹1,42,500/- deposited in Adhi Atwal’s account) and the gravity of the offence to argue that the petitioner should not be granted bail.
The respondent contended that the petitioner might flee from justice or repeat the offence if released.
The Court's Analysis
The court conducted a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing bail under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. However, the court emphasized that Section 37 does not create an absolute bar on bail and that courts must assess whether the accused has been falsely implicated and whether they pose a risk of repeating the offence.
Inadmissibility of Confessional Statements
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2021) 4 SCC 1), which held that:
"155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and 45. For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by us. On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this judgment, the judgments of Noor Aga (supra) and Nirmal are correct in law. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. (ii) 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 cited State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr (SLP (Crl) No. 242 of 2022), where the Supreme Court reiterated that confessional statements under Section 67 are inadmissible and upheld a High Court order granting bail based on this principle.
Financial Transactions Alone Insufficient
The court also relied on the Kerala High Court’s judgment in Amal E v. State of Kerala (2023:KER:39393), which held that financial transactions alone cannot establish complicity in the absence of other evidence. The relevant para of the judgment states:
"From the perusal of the case records, it can be seen that, apart from the aforesaid transactions, there is nothing to show the involvement of the petitioners. It is true that the documents indicate the monetary transactions between the petitioners and some of the accused persons, but the question that arises is whether the said transactions were in connection with the sale of Narcotic drugs. To establish the same, apart from the confession statements of the accused, there is nothing. However, as it is an aspect to be established during the trial, I do not intend to enter into any finding at this stage, but the said aspect is sufficient to record the satisfaction of the conditions contemplated under section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the lack of such materials evokes a reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the petitioner."
Presumption of Innocence
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, citing Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018), which held that freedom cannot be curtailed indefinitely when guilt is yet to be established. The court also referred to Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation ((2012) 1 SCC 49), which held that gravity of the offence alone cannot be a ground to deny bail and that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
The Verdict
The court allowed the bail petition, ordering the petitioner’s release on bail subject to the following conditions:
Furnishing bail bonds of ₹5,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.
The petitioner shall regularly attend trial and seek exemption only through a formal application if prevented from appearing.
The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
The petitioner shall not leave India without prior court permission.
The petitioner shall comply with all conditions imposed by the trial court.
The court clarified that any violation of bail conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. The observations made in the judgment were confined to the disposal of the petition and shall not influence the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confessional Statements Under Section 67 Are Inadmissible
Practitioners must argue that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be relied upon to deny bail, as held in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Prosecution cannot use such statements to establish complicity, especially when the accused is not found in conscious possession of contraband.
Financial Transactions Alone Do Not Establish Complicity
Mere financial transactions, such as deposits in a co-accused’s bank account, cannot establish guilt without additional evidence.
Courts will require concrete evidence linking the accused to the offence, such as recovery of contraband or direct involvement in the transaction.
Bail Is the Rule, Not the Exception
Gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail. Courts must balance competing factors, including the presumption of innocence and the risk of flight or repetition of the offence.
Stringent conditions can be imposed to mitigate risks, such as high bail bonds, regular trial attendance, and restrictions on travel.
Investigation completion is a critical factor - if nothing remains to be recovered from the accused, prolonged incarceration without trial is unjustified.
