Agricultural facilities alone do not establish conscious possession or intentional participation in illicit opium cultivation; bail granted.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 247/2026 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, for offences under Sections 8, 18, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that, on 6 March 2026, the police discovered illegal opium cultivation over approximately five acres in Khasra Nos. 309 and 310 at Village Jhejhri. Co-accused Vikas Bishnoi was allegedly found at the spot, while the applicant was neither present nor apprehended there.

The applicant had remained in custody since 7 March 2026. The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed on 29 July 2026. Two co-accused, Sukharam Vishnoi and Madrupa Ram Vishnoi, had already been granted bail by the High Court.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations under Sections 8, 18, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the material collected by the prosecution sufficiently established the applicant’s conscious possession or intentional participation in the alleged opium cultivation to justify continued detention?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to consider the applicant’s prayer for regular bail.

The prosecution allegations arose under Sections 8, 18, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning prohibited activities relating to narcotic substances, illegal cultivation or production of opium, financing or harbouring illicit traffic, and abetment or conspiracy.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material collected, the existence or absence of conscious possession and intentional participation, the applicant’s custody period, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the possibility of delay in trial, criminal antecedents, and parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The Court found that the applicant was not present at the alleged cultivation site and had not been apprehended there. The land on which the opium plants were allegedly cultivated stood recorded in the names of Madhumati Tamrakar and Preetibala Tamrakar, not the applicant.

The Court held that the applicant’s alleged connection through adjoining agricultural land and common agricultural facilities—such as water, electricity, pumps and sprinklers—did not, by themselves, establish conscious possession or intentional participation in the cultivation.

It also noted that no narcotic substance had been recovered from the applicant’s conscious and exclusive possession.

The Court further considered that the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 7 March 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

The grant of bail to co-accused Sukharam Vishnoi and Madrupa Ram Vishnoi supported consideration of parity, notwithstanding the State’s contention that the applicant had one criminal antecedent.

The High Court allowed the applicant’s first regular bail application and directed his release in Crime No. 247/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of non-appearance or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.