NDPS Act| Manner In Which Accused Is Arraigned In FIR Is Relevant While Adjudicating Pre-Arrest Bail Plea: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that while adjudicating  anticipatory bail under NDPS, the manner in which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated is a required to be seen.

Justice Sumeet Goel explained, “The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for anticipatory bail, this court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.”

The prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected, it added.

These observations were made while hearing the bail plea in a drugs case under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, under Sections 21(b), 61-85 of NDPS Act (Section 29 NDPS Act added later on).

Counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no link or connection between the petitioner and the co-accused (from whom the contraband is alleged to have been recovered) and the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused from whom the contraband is alleged to have been recovered.

After analysing the submissions and referring to catena of Apex Court's judgements , the bench said that it is a well established principle of law that at the incipient stage of investigation, when the investigation is still ongoing, the Court must restraint and refrain from undertaking a meticulous examination of evidence collected thus far. 

“The process of investigation is dynamic, and evidence may evolve or be corroborated, as the investigation progresses. However, as anticipatory bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation,” added the Court.

Justice Goel noted that in the present case the petitioner is sought to be arraigned as an accused in the FIR in question, solely, on the basis of disclosure statement made by co- accused from whom there is recovery of contraband and per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband in question. 

“It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial,” said the Court.

However, the judge said that the same cannot be construed as sufficient by itself to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner especially when the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of the interim protection earlier afforded by the Court.

It also clarified that involvement of the accused in two other cases under NDPS Act, would not be a reason, sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to him qua the FIR in question “especially when the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail in the FIR in question on merits thereof.”

In the light of the above the plea was allowed.

Mr. Amrit Paul Nahar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

Title: Ashu v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH)09

Click here to read/download the order