Absence of Corroborative Evidence Overcomes Section 37 NDPS Bar Where Implication Rests Solely on Co-Accused Statements.

The applicant, Shahnawaj, filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

He was arrested on October 3, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 128/2025 for offenses under Sections 8, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution's case is based on the interception of co-accused Ibrahim, from whom 55 grams of MD (Mephedrone) were recovered.

Ibrahim allegedly stated in police custody that he purchased the contraband from the applicant.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement, with no recovery of incriminating material or money trails found in his possession.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the restrictions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act when the primary evidence is the statement of a co-accused.

2. Whether the applicant's incarceration is necessary given the lack of physical recovery and his past acquittal in a similar matter.

The Court primarily applied Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which provides stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities.

It relied heavily on the precedent established in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, which held that statements made to police officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence.

Additionally, the court considered the procedural framework of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding bail during investigation.

The Court observed that the applicant was implicated solely based on the statement of co-accused Ibrahim recorded under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, which is legally inadmissible per Tofan Singh.

The Court noted that no narcotic contraband was recovered from the "active and conscious possession" of the applicant, nor were there call details or financial records linking him to the crime.

Addressing the state's concern regarding criminal antecedents, the Court accepted the applicant’s rebuttal that he had been acquitted in his prior NDPS case in 2025.

Consequently, the Court found that the statutory bar under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act did not apply as there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant might not be guilty at this stage.

The Court held that continued incarceration was unnecessary given the applicant's age (65 years), his socio-economic status as an agriculturist, and the lack of flight risk or potential for witness tampering.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount, subject to five specific conditions, including regular attendance at trial and a prohibition on committing further offenses.