In many cases, regular bail can be granted under the NDPS Act if the case against the accused is based solely on a disclosure statement (or confession under Section 67) that is not corroborated by any other evidence or recovery. [1, 2]
Key Principles

- Inadmissibility of Disclosure Statements: The Supreme Court has held that confessional statements made to police officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are generally inadmissible as evidence in court.
- Corroboration is Key: A disclosure statement is considered a weak piece of evidence on its own. For it to have evidentiary value (under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act), it must lead to the actual discovery of a new, material fact or object (like the recovery of contraband, drug money, etc.) not previously known to the police.
- Meeting Section 37 Conditions: For serious offenses involving commercial quantities, Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent “twin conditions” for bail:
How This Applies to Bail
If the prosecution’s case rests entirely on an uncorroborated disclosure statement and no recovery was made from the accused:
- The court may find that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty, thus satisfying the first condition of Section 37.
- The lack of substantive evidence beyond the statement weakens the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.
- Courts, particularly High Courts, have often granted bail in such situations, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to justify continued detention. [1, 3, 10, 11]
Important Considerations
- Quantity of Contraband: The quantity of drugs involved is a crucial factor. The lack of corroborative evidence is a stronger argument for bail in cases involving small or intermediate quantities, or where the accused was merely named in relation to a commercial quantity recovered from a co-accused.
- Additional Evidence: The presence of other material like call detail records (CDRs), financial transactions, or CCTV footage that corroborates the disclosure statement can be a reason to deny bail.
- Judicial Discretion: Each case is decided on its unique facts. The court will evaluate all the material on record to determine if a prima facie case exists. [12, 13, 14, 15]
In essence, a defense lawyer would argue that a regular bail should be granted because reliance solely on an inadmissible and uncorroborated disclosure statement does not meet the legal threshold to deny bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
AI responses may include mistakes.
[2] https://supremetoday.ai/search/anticipatory-bail-in-ndps-act-on-disclosure-statement
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19367453/
[6] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/26837/26837_2024_12_1501_58149_Judgement_20-Dec-2024.pdf
[7] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bail-ndps-case-explained-tarun-gaur-ckagc
[9] https://lexellaw.com/2023/03/04/disclosure-statements-ndps-act-section-29/
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9Vj3PTEA3o
[13] https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59514112024CRLR12412023_173945.pdf
[14] https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/granting-anticipatory-bail-based-solely-on-disclosure-statements-in-ndps-cases:-ram-singh-v.-state-of-punjab/view [15] https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/emerging-judicial-principles-in-bail-applications-under-ndps:-distinguishing-mere-association-from-active-complicity/view