Absence of corroborative CDR or money trail justifies bail despite bar under Section 37 NDPS Act.

On February 6, 2026, police intercepted an abandoned Maruti Brezza containing 40 kg of Poppy Straw

Investigation into the vehicle’s chassis and engine numbers led to the registered owner, Abhishek Tiwari, who claimed he had entrusted the vehicle to the applicant (Sonu @ Mohseen Ali) and an associate for their second-hand vehicle business

The applicant was arrested on February 13, 2026

In police custody, the applicant stated he provided the car to one Adil, who allegedly procured the contraband

The applicant sought bail, contending that he was implicated solely on inadmissible self-incriminating statements and co-accused information, with no direct recovery or technical evidence (Call Detail Reports or money trails) linking him to the crime

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act

2. Whether the restrictions on bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are attracted when the primary evidence consists of statements made in police custody

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for the grant of bail

It considered Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023

Regarding the admissibility of evidence, the court relied on Deepak Bhai v. State of Gujarat (2020) 2 SCC (Cri.) and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, which establish that self-incriminating statements and information given by co-accused in police custody are inadmissible

Furthermore, the court interpreted the "twin conditions" for bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act

The court observed that no narcotic contraband was seized from the direct or immediate possession of the applicant

It noted the absence of Call Detail Reports (CDR) or a money trail that would establish a nexus between the applicant and the principal accused, Adil or Pratipal

The court found that since the applicant's involvement was based primarily on statements rendered inadmissible by the Tofan Singh precedent, the contentions of the applicant held prima facie merit

Consequently, the court determined that the stringent bar against bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act did not operate in this specific instance

Additionally, the court noted the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and his stable socio-economic status as factors reducing the risk of recidivism or fleeing from justice

The court held that the interdict of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not applicable given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case at this stage

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular court attendance and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or committing further offences