Ashish Vishkarma v. State of Punjab – Regular Bail under NDPS Act, PHHC 2025

Case: Ashish Vishkarma @ Sunil alias Manish v. State of Punjab; Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court; Judge: Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.; Case No.: CRM-M-29725 of 2023; Decision Date: 05.08.2025; Parties: Ashish Vishkarma (Petitioner) vs State of Punjab (Respondent)

The petition before this Court raises the critical question whether, in a narcotics case governed by the stringent bail provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the uncorroborated disclosure of a co‑accused can, by itself, justify the denial of regular bail; concomitantly, the petitioner contends that the extraordinary duration of his pre‑trial detention, amounting to nearly three years, coupled with the State's failure to produce any substantive evidence linking him to the seized drug tablets, invokes the constitutional guarantee of liberty enshrined in Article 21; accordingly, the relief sought consists of the grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to conditions deemed necessary to safeguard the continuance of the trial and to prevent any possibility of tampering with evidence; the State, invoking the presumption of guilt attendant to offenses enumerated under Sections 22‑C and 29 of the NDPS Act, argues that the seriousness of the alleged contravention alone suffices to place the petition before the docket of the Section 37 bar, thereby precluding any consideration of bail.

Facts

The first information report numbered 121, dated 19 July 2022, was lodged at Amloh Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib, alleging that the petitioner, Ashish Vishkarma, along with co‑accused, participated in the possession of two hundred strips comprising twelve hundred Lomotil tablets, thereby contravening Sections 22‑C and 29 of the NDPS Act; the petitioner was arrested on 23 July 2022, placed in judicial custody, and, as reflected in the custody certificate dated 30 July 2025, remained detained for a period of two years, nine months, and twenty‑two days without any substantive trial proceedings; during the investigation, the sole material linking the petitioner to the alleged narcotics comprised the disclosure statement of co‑accused Janak Raj, who, in a recorded statement, implicated the petitioner without providing any physical evidence or corroborating testimony; eighteen prosecution witnesses were listed; however, only seven were examined, and of those, merely four offered statements, none of which established possession of the contraband by the petitioner, nor did any recovery occur from his person or premises; the petitioner subsequently filed an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bail, contending that the detention violated his right to speedy trial, while the State opposed bail on the ground that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes an absolute bar in cases involving serious drug offenses.

Issue

The paramount issue for determination is whether, in light of the absence of corroborative material and the petitioner's extended pre‑trial incarceration, the conditions of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are satisfied to the extent that regular bail may be granted notwithstanding the statutory presumption of non‑bailability in narcotics offenses; a subsidiary question concerns whether the petitioner's antecedent pending criminal matters may, by themselves, constitute a sufficient ground to deny bail under the discretionary rubric provided by Section 37.

Rule

The governing legal framework comprises Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which stipulates that bail may be granted only upon satisfaction of two cumulative criteria: (i) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (ii) a demonstrable likelihood of the accused committing another offence; the Supreme Court, in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020 SC 5592) and Smt. Najmunisha v. State of Gujrat (2024 INSC 290), enunciated that a co‑accused's confession under Section 67, in the absence of corroboration, constitutes weak evidence insufficient to defeat bail where the other statutory conditions are not met; the High Court, invoking precedent from Anshul Sardana (2025 PHHC 004198) and Jaswinder Singh alias Kala (2025 PHHC 089161), affirmed that the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) are cumulative and that the term 'likely' demands a substantial probability of re‑offending, not a mere possibility.

Analysis

Having examined the record, the Court observed that the petitioner's arrest on 23 July 2022 was predicated solely upon the discovery of the Lomotil tablets from co‑accused Janak Raj's possession, with no seizure or forensic link to the petitioner's person or premises; the sole incriminating material, namely Janak Raj's disclosure statement implicating the petitioner, was found by the Court to be devoid of corroborative testimony, forensic evidence, or any independent recovery, thereby fitting the description of 'weak evidence' articulated in Tofan Singh; in accordance with the principle enunciated in Anshul Sardana, the Court held that a confession of a co‑accused, without corroboration, cannot, at the bail stage, be elevated to a decisive factor warranting denial of liberty; turning to the first limb of Section 37(1)(b), the Court examined whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioner is not guilty, and concluded that the absence of any tangible link between the petitioner and the contraband satisfies this requirement; regarding the second limb, the Court found no evidence indicating a substantial probability that the petitioner would recommit a narcotics offence, noting that his antecedent pending cases, though present, were unrelated to drug offenses and therefore insufficient to satisfy the 'likelihood' criterion; the Court further observed that the petitioner's detention for two years, nine months, and twenty‑two days, attributable to investigatory and procedural delays beyond his control, invoked the constitutional protection against unreasonable deprivation of liberty, compelling a balancing of personal freedom against the State's interest in trial integrity; invoking Article 21, the Court held that the protracted custody, absent compelling reasons, rendered the continued denial of bail untenable, thereby satisfying the equitable considerations that temper the strictures of Section 37; the State's reliance on the seriousness of the alleged drug offence was deemed insufficient, for the jurisprudence mandates that seriousness alone cannot override the statutory safeguards when the evidentiary foundation is tenuous; consequently, the Court concluded that both limbs of Section 37(1)(b) were satisfied in favor of the petitioner, authorizing the trial court to grant regular bail, subject to reasonable conditions aimed at preventing tampering, ensuring appearance, and averting re‑offence; the order delineated conditions encompassing surrender of passport, mandatory monthly affidavits affirming non‑offence, prohibition on contact with co‑accused, and a stipulation that any breach would invite immediate cancellation of bail.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the petition under Section 439 CrPC was allowed, and the petitioner was discharged on regular bail upon furnishing surety, subject to the comprehensive conditions enumerated herein, without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying NDPS charge.

Regular Bail in NDPS Cases

Why Choose SimranLaw: Choosing SimranLaw for representation in regular bail matters under the NDPS Act assures clients a team steeped in nuanced understanding of the stringent statutory framework, capable of navigating the dual requisites of Section 37 while safeguarding constitutional liberties; Our practitioners possess a proven track record of securing bail in cases where prosecution reliance on co‑accused confessions has been deftly challenged, drawing upon precedents such as Tofan Singh and Anshul Sardana to diminish evidentiary weight of uncorroborated statements; By conducting meticulous forensic reviews of custody certificates, we demonstrate to the bench the undue hardship of prolonged pre‑trial detention, thereby invoking Article 21 jurisprudence to tilt the balance in favor of liberty; Our counsel meticulously drafts bail petitions that articulate the absence of corroborative evidence, reference the cumulative nature of Section 37(1)(b) criteria, and propose proportionate conditions tailored to the specific facts, ensuring judicial confidence in the proposed safeguards; In addition, we proactively engage with investigating officers to secure timely disclosure of any remedial material, thereby preempting surprise evidentiary developments that could jeopardize the bail order; Our firm's familiarity with the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's procedural nuances enables us to file interlocutory applications swiftly, such as petitions for transfer of trial or stay of prosecution, when strategic considerations demand preservation of the client's rights; We maintain an active docket of ongoing NDPS bail precedents, ensuring that each argument presented is anchored in the most recent judicial pronouncements, thereby preventing reliance on outdated authority that could diminish persuasive effect; Our litigation strategy incorporates the preparation of detailed affidavits and character certificates, which, when submitted alongside the bail bond, reinforce the narrative of a law‑abiding citizen unlikely to abscond or re‑offend; Recognizing that the State may attempt to invoke pending cases as a negative factor, we systematically demonstrate through comparative analysis that mere multiplicity of charges does not satisfy the 'likelihood of re‑offending' prong of Section 37, as articulated in Jaswinder Singh alias Kala; Our advocacy extends beyond bail acquisition to vigilant monitoring of compliance with imposed conditions, allowing us to promptly address any alleged breaches and, where appropriate, seek modification rather than cancellation, thus preserving the client's freedom while maintaining procedural integrity; We coordinate with forensic experts to scrutinize the chain of custody of seized substances, ensuring that any procedural lapses are highlighted before the court, thereby weakening the prosecution's contention of a robust evidentiary foundation; Our client‑centric approach includes counseling on the importance of maintaining a clean digital footprint, as the Court may scrutinize mobile usage and social media interactions when evaluating the risk of tampering or re‑offence; In the event of a bail cancellation petition, we are prepared to file an immediate review under Article 226 of the Constitution, presenting a comprehensive rebuttal grounded in procedural vitiation and the fundamental right to liberty; Our firm's network of senior counsel across the national jurisdiction enables us to coordinate multi‑court strategies, ensuring that any adverse developments in one forum are promptly addressed in others, thereby preserving a cohesive defence posture; By aligning our legal arguments with the High Court's own pronouncements on bail jurisprudence, we reinforce the persuasive authority of the forum, increasing the likelihood that the court will adopt our proposed conditions rather than impose arbitrary restrictions; Our commitment to transparent fee structures and continuous case updates ensures that clients remain fully informed of procedural milestones and financial obligations, fostering trust and enabling strategic decision‑making throughout the bail proceedings; In sum, the confluence of seasoned advocacy, meticulous evidence handling, and strategic procedural maneuvering positions SimranLaw as the preeminent choice for defendants seeking regular bail in complex NDPS matters within the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction; We further ensure that any bail conditions concerning periodic reporting are streamlined through electronic filing mechanisms, reducing procedural delays and demonstrating to the court our proactive compliance ethos, which the judiciary often rewards with greater discretionary latitude; Our experience with interlocutory bail hearings has taught us the value of succinct, well‑structured submissions that interweave statutory analysis with factual matrices, thereby facilitating swift judicial appraisal and minimizing the risk of adjournments; Finally, by maintaining an active dialogue with the prosecution regarding the sufficiency of evidence, we often secure verbal assurances to refrain from filing further charges, a pragmatic step that further consolidates the security of bail and mitigates future procedural assaults.