Anticipatory bail granted in NDPS case based primarily on co-accused’s statement and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 166/2026 registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, for an offence under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Acting on secret information that Raman Chouhan was carrying Onerex cough syrup bottles in a forest area and awaiting a purchaser, the police intercepted him and allegedly recovered 180 bottles from two plastic bags.

The value was stated as ₹18,000, although the FIR mentioned ₹36,000.

In his memorandum statement, Raman Chouhan allegedly named the applicant and stated that the seized articles were to be purchased by him.

The applicant denied the allegations, contended that the co-accused’s statement was unreliable, and pointed out that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the application but confirmed that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offence registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act.

Whether, considering the nature of the allegations, the alleged implication through the co-accused’s statement, and the absence of criminal antecedents, the applicant should be protected from arrest subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, concerning contravention involving a commercial quantity of a psychotropic substance.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature of the allegation, the material relied upon for implicating the applicant, the submissions of both parties, and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents.

The Court expressly granted relief without making any observation on the merits of the prosecution case.

The alleged recovery was made from co-accused Raman Chouhan, not from the applicant.

The applicant’s alleged involvement arose principally from the co-accused’s memorandum statement, which stated that the seized cough syrup was to be purchased by him.

The defence highlighted the inconsistency between the value recorded in the FIR and the value stated in the prosecution narrative, as well as the absence of any independent material or criminal antecedent against the applicant.

After considering the nature of the allegations and the rival submissions, the Court found it appropriate to exercise its discretion under Section 482 BNSS in favour of anticipatory bail, while leaving the merits of the case open.

The Court directed that, in the event of the applicant’s arrest in Crime No. 166/2026, he be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The applicant was required to cooperate with interrogation, refrain from influencing witnesses or obstructing a fair trial, and appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the proceedings.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance.