Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case despite plea of alibi and memorandum-based implication.

On April 5, 2026, police intercepted a motorcycle carrying three individuals—Munna Barve, Mikendra @ Mukesh Dev, and Dileep Suna—and seized 21 kilograms of Ganja.

The applicant, Jagdish @ Jagga, was not present at the scene but was implicated during the investigation as being part of a trafficking syndicate that had allegedly sold 5 kilograms of Ganja in March 2026 and facilitated further sales.

The applicant was arrested on January 17, 2026.

He sought regular bail, contending he was falsely implicated based solely on inadmissible memorandum statements of co-accused persons and raising a plea of alibi supported by medical records from Odisha.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence and memorandum statements of co-accused are sufficient to sustain the applicant's detention despite a plea of alibi.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Crucially, the court evaluated the "rigours" of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which imposes strict conditions for bail when commercial quantities of contraband are involved—requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty.

The court also noted the principle from Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, regarding the limited admissibility of confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act.

The court engaged in a balancing act between the applicant's defense and the prosecution's allegations of systemic trafficking. It noted that 21 kilograms of Ganja constitutes a "commercial quantity," thereby triggering the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

While the applicant argued that his name was not in the FIR and his involvement rested only on memorandum statements, the court found that the case diary indicated a deeper "active involvement and participation" in a chain of illegal trafficking alongside co-accused persons Munna Barve, Mikendra Dev, and others.

The court largely disregarded the applicant's medical alibi at this stage, focusing instead on the "gravity of the offence" and the potential for the applicant to influence witnesses or obstruct justice if released.

The Court held that the material in the case diary prima facie established the applicant's role in the trafficking syndicate.

Consequently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the bail application, refusing to extend the benefit of bail during the pendency of the trial.