Absence of a Section 65B certificate, alongside other factors, supported bail despite commercial-quantity NDPS allegations.

The applicant was arrested on 15 February 2026 in connection with Crime No. 207/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, for alleged offences under Sections 21(c) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, a raid was conducted at the applicant’s residence, where 2,925 NRX Clonazepam tablets (Rivotril) were allegedly recovered from four boxes kept in a red polythene bag under a staircase.

The applicant asserted that she had been falsely implicated owing to ongoing matrimonial disputes with her husband, who operated a medical shop, and alleged collusion between her husband and Shailendra Singh, an Assistant Sub-Inspector posted at the concerned police station.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 15 February 2026.

Whether the applicant, accused of possessing commercial quantity of a psychotropic substance under Sections 21(c) and 22 of the NDPS Act, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the applicant’s custody since 15 February 2026, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of prior NDPS antecedents, alleged matrimonial dispute, and absence of a Section 65B certificate for the prosecution’s videography constituted sufficient grounds for granting bail despite the alleged commercial quantity.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail; Sections 21(c) and 22 of the NDPS Act, concerning punishment for contravention involving commercial quantity and psychotropic substances, respectively; and the established bail principles requiring consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the period of custody, the stage of investigation and trial, the possibility of further detention, and the accused’s criminal antecedents.

The Court also considered the evidentiary significance, at the bail stage, of the prosecution’s admission that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 had been obtained for the electronic videography.

The Court acknowledged that bail would ordinarily not be granted where commercial quantity of contraband was allegedly recovered from the applicant’s residence.

However, the applicant had been in custody for over six months, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and she had no previous antecedent under the NDPS Act.

The Court also considered the specific defence of false implication arising from the matrimonial dispute and the alleged involvement of the applicant’s husband and the police officer.

Since the prosecution itself relied upon videography of the incident but admitted that no Section 65B certificate had been obtained, the Court treated the absence of such certification as a relevant circumstance at the interlocutory stage, without determining its ultimate evidentiary effect at trial.

The bail application was allowed. The applicant, Smt. Rani Singh, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring her not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of her statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further permitted the trial court to take appropriate action in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or non-compliance with the conditions.