In Pushkar Pandey v. Govt of NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 4249/2026, decided 5 November 2026), Justice Mini Pushkarna of the High Court of Delhi granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in an NDPS case arising from FIR No. 160/2026, PS Sultanpuri. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and nothing was recovered from him; the case against him rested on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, bank transactions said to route sale proceeds, and call records. The court held that, absent substantive corroboration, a disclosure statement does not establish the direct link needed to attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The case in one view
| Case | Pushkar Pandey v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 4249/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Mini Pushkarna J |
| Decided | 5 November 2026 |
| Provisions | Sections 21, 37 and 67, NDPS Act; anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS |
| Outcome | Anticipatory bail granted on conditions |
The background
The Anti-Narcotics Squad arrested one co-accused with roughly 4 grams of cocaine and 20 grams of smack. In his disclosure statement, the co-accused named others and alleged that sale proceeds were routed into the petitioner’s bank account on the instructions of a third person. The prosecution’s file against the petitioner was built on that disclosure, the financial transactions, and a large volume of calls between the petitioner and the third person.
The Special Court refused anticipatory bail in April 2026. The co-accused himself obtained regular bail in July 2026. Non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner in September 2026, and the State characterised him as an absconder. The petitioner — twenty-four years old, with a clean record and not named in the FIR — maintained that the monetary dealings were loans and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.
The disclosure-statement problem
The legal spine of the decision is the evidentiary status of a co-accused’s disclosure. Following the Supreme Court in Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. NCB and coordinate-bench authority of the Delhi High Court, the court held that a disclosure statement, absent substantive corroboration, does not establish a direct link between the petitioner and the contraband. The remaining material was for the trial to evaluate:
From the judgment: the financial and call records material “is a matter of trial and cannot be a ground to deny anticipatory bail.”
Why Section 37 did not bite
Section 37 NDPS imposes twin conditions on bail where commercial quantities are involved. Here, the seizure was from the co-accused, and no direct involvement of the petitioner with the seized quantity was shown; the court accordingly held that Section 37’s rigours were not attracted to his plea. Concerns about witnesses and cooperation were met through conditions — joining the investigation, passport surrender, an operational mobile number, and no contact with witnesses — on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety.
What the decision means in practice
The wider frame
The NDPS Act’s severity makes the quality-of-evidence question at the bail stage unusually decisive. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence — from the confessional-statement line in Tofan Singh to Balwinder Singh — has steadily insisted that liberty cannot be made to turn on a co-accused’s say-so. This decision applies that insistence at the anticipatory stage, where the stakes are the arrest itself. For practitioners in Delhi, it is a current, citable instance of the High Court distinguishing between the investigative utility of a disclosure and its legal sufficiency to justify custody.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a person be denied bail only because a co-accused named him?
The court reiterated, following the Supreme Court in Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. NCB and coordinate-bench authority, that a co-accused's disclosure statement, without substantive corroboration, does not establish a direct link to the offence. Financial transactions and call records are matters for trial, and, in the words of the judgment, cannot be a ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Did Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply?
No. The recovery in the case was from the co-accused — about 4 grams of cocaine and 20 grams of smack. As no direct involvement of the petitioner with the seized quantity was shown, the court held the twin conditions of Section 37 were not attracted to his anticipatory bail plea.
What about the non-bailable warrants and the absconder allegation?
The Special Court had refused anticipatory bail in April 2026, and NBWs were later issued, with the State describing the petitioner as an absconder. The High Court nonetheless granted relief, noting his age, clean record, that he was not named in the FIR, and his undertaking to join the investigation; apprehensions about witnesses were addressed through conditions.
What conditions were imposed?
On arrest, release on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety, along with conditions to join the investigation, not leave the country without permission and surrender the passport, keep the mobile number operational, intimate any change of address, and not contact witnesses. The observations were expressly tentative, confined to the bail stage.