Bail denied for possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances where trial is nearing conclusion.

The applicant was arrested on November 26, 2023, following a police raid conducted by the Tatapani Police Outpost based on secret information.

During the raid, 75 pieces of Avil (10 ml injections) and 100 pieces of Rexogesic Buprenorphine (2 ml injections) were allegedly seized from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, was present at an ATM in Ambikapur at the time of the incident, and that mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act were bypassed.

The State opposed the bail, citing that the quantity of contraband seized was commercial and that the trial was nearing completion.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantities.

The Court primarily applied Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which pertains to punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances involving commercial quantities.

Procedurally, the application was moved under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Court also referenced Sections 42, 50, and 57 of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure procedures, and the precedent of *Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu* (2021) 4 SCC, which establishes that confessional statements made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the applicant's claims of innocence and procedural non-compliance.

While the applicant argued that the contraband was not in his exclusive possession and cited an alibi supported by potential CCTV evidence, the Court emphasized the nature and gravity of the offense involving a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances.

The Court noted that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the contraband found in his joint possession.

Furthermore, the Court observed that since the trial was at the "verge of its conclusion," the necessity for bail was diminished compared to the risk of interfering with the final stages of the judicial process.

The Court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and ordered a copy of the judgment to be sent for immediate compliance.