Anticipatory bail may be denied when custodial interrogation is necessary to unravel an alleged narcotics network.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 102/2026, registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)

Police intercepted a scooty carrying two persons and recovered 1 kilogram and 813 grams of charas from a packet carried by the pillion rider; occupants of a motorcycle and taxi were also apprehended

During investigation, the co-accused allegedly stated that the petitioner had directed them to procure the contraband from a person known as Sanju and had provided ₹1,46,000 for its purchase

Sanju had not been traced, and the investigation remained at an early stage

The petitioner argued that the case against him rested on co-accused statements and that no contraband had been recovered from him

The State opposed bail, submitting that his custodial interrogation was necessary

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in the NDPS Act case, given the alleged role attributed to him by the co-accused and the absence of a recovery from his possession

2. Whether the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the alleged source, network and other outstanding links in the case

The Court considered the petitioner’s application under Section 482 BNSS and the alleged offences under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act

It relied on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, and Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493, in addressing the relevance of custodial interrogation to the investigation

It also relied on Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181, for the principle that anticipatory-bail discretion requires balancing individual liberty against the gravity and societal impact of the alleged offence and the need for a fair and unhindered investigation

The Court considered the co-accused’s accounts that the petitioner had supplied the purchase money and directed the procurement of charas, noting also that several accused were said to work with him, including his driver

Although the petitioner disputed those allegations and no contraband was recovered from him, the Court found that the investigation was at a preliminary stage, the alleged supplier remained untraced, and the forward and backward links had yet to be established

In those circumstances, it concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the alleged network and connect the outstanding links, and that the material then available did not indicate false implication

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also dismissed