Absconding and failure to join investigation justify denial of anticipatory bail despite reliance on disclosure statements.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 509/2025 registered under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution's case originated from the arrest of co-accused Rohit and Sagar, who were found with 312 grams of heroin; their disclosure led to the arrest of Nadeem Khan with 508 grams of heroin.

Nadeem Khan subsequently named the applicant, Monish @ Wasim, as his supplier in Bareilly.

During the investigation, the police conducted raids at the applicant's residence, which was found locked, and notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were pasted without response.

The applicant argued a case of mistaken identity and claimed the prosecution's case rested solely on inadmissible disclosure statements.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite being named by co-accused in a recovery of commercial quantities of narcotics?

Whether the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to establish the supply chain and identify associates under the NDPS Act?

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically Sections 21, 25, and 29.

It also considered Section 67 of the NDPS Act regarding the issuance of notices to suspects.

The court applied the settled principle that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an "extraordinary power" to be exercised cautiously based on the peculiarities of the case.

It further distinguished the precedent *Joy Mitra v. Narcotics Control Bureau*, noting that the benefit of pre-arrest bail is generally reserved for those who have joined the investigation and where no incriminating links are found.

The court rejected the applicant's plea of "mistaken identity," noting that the State had verified the applicant's identity through local residents and the village Pradhan.

While the applicant argued that disclosure statements carry no evidentiary value, the court observed that the statements led the police to the applicant's specific residence in Bareilly, which was found locked, suggesting the applicant was absconding.

The court distinguished the cited precedent *Joy Mitra*, noting that unlike the parties in that case, the current applicant had failed to join the investigation.

The court reasoned that in NDPS cases involving significant quantities, custodial interrogation is "imperative" to "connect all the dots," establish the source/supply chain, and confront the suspect with co-accused to ensure the integrity of the investigation.

It held that given the specific allegations and the applicant's conduct (absconding), the grant of anticipatory bail would "seriously hamper effective investigation".

The court concluded that custodial interrogation was essential to identify the broader drug trafficking network.