Anticipatory bail denied where call records and witness statements prima facie establish supplier's complicity in NDPS offences.

The applicant, Rajendra Rauat, filed his first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

On January 11, 2026, two co-accused (Abhisekh Sonkar and Khushi Kaur) were apprehended at Madan Mahal Railway Station, Jabalpur, in possession of 12.251 Kgs of Ganja.

While they initially withheld the supplier's identity, subsequent Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis revealed communication between the co-accused and the applicant.

On February 17, 2026, statements recorded under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, implicated the applicant as the supplier from Balangir, Orissa.

A hotel manager in Orissa further identified the applicant through photographs, confirming meetings between the parties.

The applicant sought bail contending that statements by co-accused in police custody are inadmissible and there is no other material evidence.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, for offences under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, given the nature of the evidence and his history of non-cooperation.

The court primarily considered Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, regarding the prohibition and punishment for carrying narcotic contraband.

It applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail.

The court interpreted Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, regarding information received from an accused in police custody.

The court also relied on the principle that the "rare and exceptional relief" of anticipatory bail may be denied if custodial interrogation is necessary for a meaningful investigation and there exists a risk of flight or recidivism.

The court found prima facie evidence of the applicant’s complicity based on technological and corroborative evidence rather than solely on the statements of co-accused.

While the defense argued that the information memo was inadmissible, the prosecution presented CDRs showing communication between the parties and testimony from a hotel manager identifying the applicant and verifying a meeting on January 7, 2026.

The court reasoned that since the applicant has eight prior criminal cases, has been absconding, and has not cooperated with the investigation, there is a strong likelihood of recidivism and fleeing from justice.

Furthermore, the court determined that the nature of the supply chain in NDPS cases necessitates custodial interrogation to facilitate further investigation into the narcotics network.

The court found that the evidence of communication and physical meetings, combined with the applicant's criminal history, outweighed the arguments for bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.