Bail denied under NDPS Act as memorandum statements indicate involvement in organized supply of commercial quantities.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail where his implication is based on memorandum statements of co-accused without direct recovery of contraband from his person

The court held

The Court rejected the bail application, holding that the seriousness of the organized trade and the commercial quantity of the contraband precluded the grant of relief at this stage

It also directed

The Court directed the trial court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously

Case dismissed

01Facts

The applicant sought his first regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following his arrest for offences under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act

¶ 1

On March 9, 2025, police seized 55 bottles (100 ml each) of Codeine-based Onerex cough syrup from the possession of two co-accused persons

¶ 2-3

The applicant was subsequently implicated and arrested on May 19, 2025, based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused, which alleged he was the supplier

¶ 2-3

The prosecution further alleged a financial link involving a transfer of Rs. 18,000 to the account of the applicant's father

¶ 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail where his implication is based on memorandum statements of co-accused without direct recovery of contraband from his person

¶ 3, 6

ii.2. Whether the quantity of the seized contraband attracts the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

¶ 3-4, 6

03Law Applied

The Court primarily considered Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, regarding the possession and conspiracy of psychotropic substances

¶ 1

It evaluated the evidentiary value of statements made to police officers as per the principles in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu

¶ 3

Furthermore, the Court applied the standards for bail in narcotics cases involving commercial quantities as interpreted in Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Union of India and the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

¶ 3-4

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21 Section 22 Section 29 Section 37

04Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the applicant's argument that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession and that memorandum statements of co-accused carry limited evidentiary weight under the Indian Evidence Act

¶ 3, 6

However, the Court observed that the memorandum statements prima facie established a link between the applicant and the supply of the seized syrup

¶ 6

The Court emphasized that the 5,500 ml of Codeine-based syrup constituted a "commercial quantity," thereby triggering stricter scrutiny for bail

¶ 4, 6

It reasoned that the nature of the offence suggested involvement in an organized illicit narcotics trade, which, given the gravity of the allegations, necessitated continued incarceration despite the applicant's lack of prior criminal antecedents

¶ 6

05Holding

The Court rejected the bail application, holding that the seriousness of the organized trade and the commercial quantity of the contraband precluded the grant of relief at this stage

¶ 6-7

The Court directed the trial court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously

¶ 8

Case dismissed

¶ 7

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF