Delhi High Court Denies NDPS Bail; Section 67 Statement Excluded but Independent Evidence Considered

New Delhi, 20 August 2026: The Delhi High Court has refused regular bail to an accused in an alleged organised cocaine-trafficking case, holding that although a statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could not be relied upon as a confession, the remaining independent and circumstantial material still had to be assessed under the twin conditions in Section 37.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the judgment in Amrik Singh Bedi v. Narcotics Control Bureau, BAIL APPLN. 610/2026, on 19 August 2026.

Prosecution allegations

According to the prosecution case recorded in the judgment, an investigation began after a parcel allegedly containing 1.015 kilograms of cocaine was detected in November 2024. The investigation later resulted in the alleged recovery of 81.515 kilograms of cocaine from the residence of a co-accused.

No contraband was alleged to have been recovered from the bail applicant. The NCB, however, alleged that he had participated in locating a consignment at a factory in Mehsana, Gujarat, as part of a larger transaction. The prosecution relied on witness statements, call-detail and tower-location material, flight records and circumstances relating to the applicant’s alleged travel and presence at the factory.

These remain allegations to be proved at trial. The High Court repeatedly clarified that its bail-stage assessment did not decide the merits of the prosecution case.

Section 67 statement kept out of consideration as a confession

A central issue was the legal effect of the applicant’s statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Applying the law declared in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the High Court did not rely on that statement as a confessional statement against the applicant.

The Court nevertheless held that excluding the Section 67 statement did not require it to disregard other legally available material. It therefore examined the prosecution’s independent material, including electronic records, flight details, witness statements and the alleged factory visit, cumulatively.

The judgment reinforces an important distinction: an inadmissible confessional use of a Section 67 statement cannot supply the basis for refusing bail, but genuinely independent evidence does not disappear merely because such a statement also forms part of the investigation record.

Why absence of recovery was not decisive

The defence emphasised that nothing was recovered from the applicant and that he was not alleged to have physically possessed or transported the narcotic substance. The High Court held that absence of personal recovery was not conclusive at the bail stage because the prosecution had invoked Section 29 of the NDPS Act and alleged participation in a wider conspiracy.

The Court was not required at this stage to decide whether the entire alleged chain would ultimately be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The limited statutory question was whether there were reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not guilty and was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Section 37 twin conditions not satisfied

On the material available, the High Court was unable to form a reasonable belief that the applicant was not guilty. It held that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, considered cumulatively, prima facie connected him with the alleged transaction.

The Court also declined to mechanically extend parity with co-accused who had secured bail. Parity, it observed, requires comparison of the specific role and material attributed to each accused. The evidence relied upon against the present applicant was treated as materially distinguishable.

Regarding the second limb of Section 37, the Court considered the allegation of an organised operation involving commercial quantity and international linkages. It found no material enabling it to conclude at this stage that the alleged involvement was an isolated aberration or that the applicant was unlikely to repeat such conduct if released.

Custody and completion of investigation

The applicant had been arrested in December 2024, except for a period of interim bail. The Court recognised that custody duration and completion of investigation are relevant, but held that they could not independently override the statutory restrictions in Section 37 where its twin conditions remained unsatisfied.

Why the judgment matters

The decision is significant for NDPS bail practice because it separates three propositions that are sometimes conflated:

• a Section 67 statement cannot be used as a confessional statement against the accused;
• absence of personal recovery is relevant but not automatically decisive where conspiracy is alleged; and
• independent evidence must still be tested cumulatively against the strict requirements of Section 37.

Primary source: Delhi High Court judgment dated 19 August 2026.

This report summarises a bail-stage order. All prosecution assertions remain allegations and the accused is entitled to a trial in accordance with law.