Co-accused’s confession alone insufficient to deny bail under NDPS Act: HC

08/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 7: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a Bihar resident booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that the confessional statement of a co-accused, without any independent corroborative evidence or recovery, cannot by itself justify continued incarceration.
Justice Shahzad Azeem allowed the bail application filed by Raju Kumar, a resident of Madhepura district in Bihar, who had challenged the rejection of his bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Samba.
According to the prosecution, police intercepted two accused at a naka in Ramgarh, Samba, on January 23, 2025, and allegedly recovered 255.39 grams of heroin from one of them. During investigation, the co-accused allegedly disclosed that they had received the contraband from Raju Kumar and another accused. The investigating agency also relied on a site plan of an agricultural field allegedly identified by the accused during investigation.
The High Court, however, observed that apart from the disclosure statements of the co-accused, there was no tangible material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It noted that no narcotic substance had been recovered from the petitioner's possession and no incriminating material had been discovered at his instance.
Justice Azeem held that the confessional statement of a co-accused has no independent evidentiary value against another accused and cannot be used to curtail personal liberty. The court observed that relying solely on such statements would be contrary to the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, the High Court reiterated that officers under the NDPS Act are treated as police officers and confessional statements made before them are inadmissible in evidence. It further held that even the statement of a co-accused recorded in the presence of an Executive Magistrate while in police custody could not constitute admissible evidence against the petitioner.
The court observed that although the recovered contraband fell within the commercial quantity category, the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not bar bail where the prosecution lacked admissible evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence. It found reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the offences alleged and noted that there was no material to show any previous criminal antecedents or likelihood of his committing similar offences if released on bail.
Allowing the application, Justice Azeem directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond and personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties of the like amount. The court also directed him to appear before the trial court on every date of hearing, not leave the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission, refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and not indulge in similar activities. The court clarified that its observations were confined to the decision on the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty