Absence of recovery and parity with bailed co-accused satisfied Section 37 NDPS Act conditions.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Airfield P.S. Case No. 158 of 2023, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 343 of 2023, pending before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for alleged offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Four co-accused persons were allegedly found in possession of 30 kg and 100 grams of ganja and, during interrogation, allegedly disclosed that the contraband had been brought for supply to the petitioner and three others.

The petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and no contraband was recovered from her possession.

The State opposed bail, relying, inter alia, on her criminal antecedents; however, the co-accused from whose possession the contraband was allegedly recovered had already been granted bail.

The petitioner had remained in custody since 22 January 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the allegations under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, despite the commercial quantity allegation and her alleged criminal antecedents.

3. Whether the absence of recovery of contraband from the petitioner, the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused, the petitioner’s period of custody, and filing of the charge-sheet justified enlargement on bail.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to offences alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, requiring the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court applied these conditions on the basis that no contraband had been recovered from the petitioner, she had not been apprehended at the spot, similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s alleged connection with the contraband from actual possession or recovery. The contraband was allegedly recovered from the co-accused, while the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor found in conscious possession of any contraband.

Although the prosecution relied on the co-accused’s alleged disclosure and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the Court considered the absence of direct recovery, the grant of bail to the co-accused from whose possession the contraband had been recovered, the petitioner’s custody since 22 January 2026, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

On these cumulative circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner satisfied the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case, subject to such further terms and conditions as that court considered appropriate.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of, and directions were issued for transmission of the order to the concerned court and jail authorities.