1 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [Section 29 added later on] and Section 25 of Arms Act [Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 added later on] GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.04 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 A perusal of record shows in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.04 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 the petitioner has already joined the investigation; iii. that the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency for the recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his interests or may amount to defeating his right of defence, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh’ [Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2026, decided on 16.02.2026]; iv. that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Sharma v. State of Haryana’ [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2026, decided on 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminating himself; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.04 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 To deal with given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana’ 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co- accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the benefit of bail to the accused. 8. Similarly, in the case of ‘Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’ 2018(8) SCC 271, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co-accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused. 9. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab’, 2018(4) RCR (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against the co-accused. 10. In ‘Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu’, 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.04 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 01.04.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.04 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document