The inadmissibility of confessions to NDPS officers is settled law — but at what stage of a case does it bite? In The State of Karnataka v. Sadiq Pasha, Criminal Appeal No. 4720 of 2026 (2026 INSC 1083), decided on 1 October 2026, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed pending NDPS proceedings against an accused shown as an absconder in the chargesheet. The Court found the manner of quashing "improper": the authorities the High Court relied on arose from convictions and bail, not from a trial yet to begin, and the accused's arguments belong before the trial court — at cognizance or discharge — not in a quashing petition that pre-empts the trial itself.
Stage matters: the core of the decision
NDPS jurisprudence contains strong accused-friendly rules — the bar on convicting upon confessions to officers chief among them. The temptation is to deploy those rules at every stage, including to kill a case before trial. The Supreme Court's answer in Sadiq Pasha is a stage-discipline rule: precedents generated at the conviction or bail-cancellation stage presuppose a record of evidence that a quashing court does not have. Where the chargesheet discloses a case to go to trial — a seizure of over 32 kilograms, two co-accused facing trial on the same transaction, and a named absconder — the High Court cannot weigh the eventual sufficiency of evidence in advance and discharge the function reserved to the trial court.
The absconder dimension
Running through the judgment is a quieter point about conduct. The respondent never faced the process — he was an absconder when the chargesheet was filed, the case against him was split, and yet he obtained a quashing while his co-accused stood trial. The Supreme Court's directions reverse that asymmetry: appearance within two weeks, bail thereafter on the trial court's terms, and coercive steps on failure. Courts are consistently less receptive to pre-trial relief sought by a person who has evaded the court whose process he challenges; the path to every remedy in the criminal justice system runs through submission to it.
For the defence bar: the judgment does not shrink Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) jurisdiction — it maps it. A quashing petition in an NDPS case must show that, taking the chargesheet at its highest, no triable case exists; an argument that the surviving evidence will prove too weak is a discharge argument, and dressing it as quashing now carries the risk of precisely this reversal, with the accused ordered to appear on a fixed clock.
Reading it with the bail landscape
There is a pragmatic consolation for accused persons in the Court's final directions: appearance brings a bail hearing, and the Court itself contemplated release on terms once the respondent submits. For an accused implicated mainly through a co-accused's statement, the realistic litigation sequence is appearance, bail, and a discharge application that puts the State to identifying material beyond the inadmissible confession. That sequence preserves every substantive protection NDPS law confers, while respecting the structure of the Sanhita — which is what the Supreme Court has insisted on here.
Key holdings at a glance: conviction-stage and bail-stage precedents do not control quashing petitions; confessions under Section 67 NDPS and disclosures under Section 53A cannot found a conviction, but their weakness is tested at trial or discharge, not by pre-trial quashing; and an absconding accused seeking relief must first submit to the court's process.
Note: this article summarises a judgment of the Supreme Court of India for general information. It is not legal advice, and it does not relate to any matter handled by this chamber.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the case against the respondent?
Mysuru police, acting on information about ganja being moved by car, arrested two persons near the vehicle and seized 32.615 kg of ganja in 42 bundles from its dashboard and trunk; a third man fled. The respondent was named as Accused No. 3, shown in the chargesheet as an absconder, and the case against him was split. The Special Court case at Udupi was then quashed by the High Court at his instance.
Why did the High Court quash, and why was that wrong?
The High Court reasoned that he was not caught at the spot, nothing was recovered from him, and he was implicated through a co-accused's confessional statement. The Supreme Court held the decisions relied upon — including Tofan Singh — arose at the stage of conviction or bail cancellation, where courts assess evidence; they do not authorise quashing a trial before the evidence is led, particularly when the trial against the co-accused is proceeding on the same material.
Does this dilute the rule that confessions to NDPS officers cannot convict?
No. The Court reaffirmed that a confessional statement under Section 67 NDPS Act, or a disclosure under Section 53A, cannot be used as evidence to convict. The point is one of stage: that protection operates at trial. At the pre-trial stage the accused's remedy is to raise the absence of other material at cognizance or by seeking discharge.
What happens to the respondent now?
Special Case No. 24 of 2022 stands restored before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Udupi. The respondent must appear within two weeks, after which he may be released on bail on terms the court considers fit; if he fails to appear, the trial court is to take steps to apprehend him.