Bail denied under NDPS Act based on co-accused statements despite lack of direct recovery.

The applicant, Mahesh Dewar, was arrested on September 1, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 90/2025 at Police Station Komakhan for an offense under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that police seized 22 kgs of Ganja from a car containing co-accused persons who, in their memorandum statements, confessed that the contraband was being transported to the applicant and another individual, Anand Dewar.

The applicant moved for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he was falsely implicated solely based on the memorandum statements of co-accused and that no direct seizure was made from his possession.

The State opposed the bail, citing the commercial quantity of the drug and the fact that the co-accused's bail had already been rejected.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offenses involving a commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act.

Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which governs the punishment for contravention in relation to the cannabis plant and cannabis.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The principle that prima facie involvement in illicit trafficking and collusion in a serious offense under the NDPS Act, even without direct seizure, justifies the denial of bail, particularly when parity with a co-accused whose bail was rejected is applicable.

The Court analyzed the nature and gravity of the offense, focusing on the quantity of the seized contraband (22 kgs of Ganja), which falls under the commercial quantity category.

While acknowledging the applicant's argument regarding the lack of direct seizure, the Court observed that the memorandum statements of the co-accused—who were caught red-handed—indicated that the drugs were being delivered specifically to the applicant.

This evidence was deemed sufficient to prima facie establish the applicant's involvement in illicit narcotic trafficking and collusion.

The Court also emphasized judicial consistency, noting that the bail application of the similarly situated co-accused, Anand Dewar, had been previously rejected by the same Court in January 2026.

The bail application was rejected.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously.