The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man arrested in a narcotics case, noting that the material against him consisted primarily of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused in police custody and that the statement had not led to any recovery or discovery of fact.Allowing the petition filed by Pupinder Singh, Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that the petitioner had been in custody for more than eight-and-a-half months and that the only material against him was the disclosure statement of a co-accused.After hearing advocate Vipul Jindal for the accused and the rival contentions, the court observed: “The only evidence available against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of his co-accused, and there is a big question mark regarding the credibility and admissibility of the statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when its maker was in police custody.”The Bench further observed that no recovery or discovery had been made pursuant to the statement. As such, the matter was prima facie “hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.”The provision renders confessions made before a police officer, or while in police custody, inadmissible as evidence against the accused. It replaces Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, combining them to strengthen safeguards against coerced confessions.According to the prosecution, the FIR was registered in April 2024 after the police intercepted a car near Bhagat Singh Colony bypass in Jalandhar and allegedly recovered eight kilogram of heroin along with Rs 21 lakh in cash.During the investigation, one of the arrested accused allegedly named several persons involved in trafficking. The petitioner was later implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by another accused during interrogation. The prosecution also claimed that Rs 44 lakh in drug money was recovered from the petitioner’s house.It was added that more than 40 kg of heroin had been recovered from the possession of two others.Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that there was “no convincing evidence to show that the money recovered from the petitioner’s house was drug money.”The court also took into account that the petitioner’s name did not figure in the FIR, he had no criminal antecedents, nothing remained to be recovered from him, and the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future.The order also referred to Supreme Court rulings before observing that a disclosure statement was not a substantive piece of evidence against a co-accused. The court also cited the Supreme Court’s observation that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence… [and] the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail… is an exception.”Allowing the petition, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bail was granted subject to conditions, including that the petitioner would not influence witnesses and would not leave India without prior permission of the court.