Absence of conscious possession and clean criminal antecedents justify bail under the NDPS Act.

On August 21, 2025, police arrested co-accused Manmohan @ Jaggu following the recovery of 28.16 grams of heroin from his possession.

In his memorandum statement, Manmohan alleged that part of the sale proceeds had been transferred to the bank account of the applicant (an acquaintance/wife), leading to her arrest on the same day.

The prosecution alleged the applicant was in possession of the contraband, while the applicant contended she was a meritorious student (preparing for the Chartered Accountant exam) who had merely agreed to keep a closed box for the co-accused without knowledge of its contents.

The applicant sought regular bail, citing a lack of "conscious possession," the absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that other female co-accused had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the seized quantity of heroin exceeds the commercial threshold.

2. Whether the applicant’s role is distinguishable from other co-accused whose bail applications were rejected.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offenses were registered under Sections 21(B), 21(C), 29, and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court considered the legal necessity of establishing "conscious possession" in drug-related offenses and examined the applicability of parity regarding co-accused under the NDPS Act.

The Court evaluated the applicant’s degree of involvement by distinguishing her circumstances from those of co-accused Harsh Rathi, whose bail had been rejected.

It noted that while Rathi was involved in active monetary transactions for drug dealing, the evidence against the applicant was limited to the possession of a box she claimed to be unaware of.

The Court placed significant weight on the applicant's status as a student with no criminal history and the fact that the investigation had culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet.

Given her gender and the lack of evidence showing she participated in the financial aspects of the drug trade—unlike Rathi—the Court determined that her incarceration was no longer necessary despite the commercial quantity involved.

The Court held that the applicant’s case was distinguishable from the main accused and those involved in financial transactions.

It ordered the applicant’s release on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: she must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally at key trial stages (framing of charges, recording of statements), and must comply with trial procedures under the BNS and BNSS.