Absence of physical recovery and reliance on co-accused's memorandum statement warrants bail under NDPS Act.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 197/2025.

The case involved the seizure of 3,000 Alprazolam tablets (1,500 mg) from the house of a co-accused, Suraj Soni.

Following his arrest, Suraj Soni provided a memorandum statement alleging that he purchased the contraband from the applicant.

While the contraband seized from the co-accused exceeded the commercial quantity, no physical recovery of any narcotic or psychotropic substance was made from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant has been in custody since October 16, 2025, and a charge-sheet has already been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under the NDPS Act when no contraband was recovered from his possession and his implication is based on a co-accused's memorandum statement.

Sections 21(C) (punishment for contravention involving commercial quantity) and 29(1) (abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding regular bail.

Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 84 and 351 of the BNSS to define conditions for the continued liberty of the applicant.

The Court’s reasoning centered on the lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to the seized contraband.

The prosecution's case against the applicant relied entirely on the memorandum statement of co-accused Suraj Soni, without any independent recovery from the applicant.

The Court distinguished the applicant's position from Suraj Soni (whose bail was rejected due to recovery of commercial quantity) and noted parity with another co-accused, Narendra Dev Tiwari, who had been granted bail.

The Court observed that the applicant had no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, though he had one antecedent under the IPC.

Since the charge-sheet was filed and the applicant had already served nearly six months in jail, the Court determined that further detention was unnecessary as the trial would take considerable time.

The absence of physical recovery and the filing of the charge-sheet justified bail despite the commercial quantity involved in the wider conspiracy.

The bail is subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear on all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and must comply with protocols regarding proclamations under Section 84 of the BNSS.