Bail denied where vehicle owner’s alleged role in transporting commercial-quantity cannabis was supported by co-accused statement and CDR evidence.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 20-B/20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

During vehicle checking at Palsapali Barrier, the police intercepted a Ciaz car bearing registration No. C.G. 04-PV/0112 and recovered 30 kg of ganja from its rear trunk from co-accused Lakheshwar Yadav.

During investigation, the applicant—who was the registered owner of the vehicle—was arrested on the basis of the alleged memorandum statement of the co-accused and call-detail records. The prosecution alleged that he had facilitated transportation of cannabis from Odisha to Mandla, Madhya Pradesh, for monetary consideration.

The applicant had been in judicial custody since 5 February 2026. He contended that there was no recovery from him, that he lacked knowledge of the contraband, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the contraband was commercial in quantity and that the investigation material indicated the applicant’s involvement in transportation.

Whether the applicant, whose vehicle was allegedly used for transporting 30 kg of ganja but from whom no direct recovery was made, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

Whether the seriousness of the offence, the commercial quantity of contraband, the applicant’s ownership of the vehicle, and the investigation material consisting of the co-accused’s memorandum statement and CDR details justified denial of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the offence under Section 20-B/20(b) of the NDPS Act concerning unlawful possession, transportation, or dealing in cannabis.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the quantity of contraband, the material collected during investigation, and the alleged role of the accused.

The Court held that the filing of the charge-sheet and the period of custody, by themselves, did not entitle the applicant to bail where the material indicated serious involvement in the transportation of a commercial quantity of narcotics.

The Court acknowledged that the recovery was made from co-accused Lakheshwar Yadav and not directly from the applicant. However, it attached significance to the fact that the recovered contraband was found in a vehicle admittedly owned by the applicant, together with the alleged co-accused memorandum statement and CDR details indicating his involvement in transporting the cannabis from Odisha to Mandla for monetary consideration.

In view of the recovery of 30 kg of ganja, which the Court treated as commercial in nature, and the seriousness of the alleged transportation offence, the Court found that the investigation material prima facie warranted continued custody. The absence of direct recovery, filing of the charge-sheet, and custody since 5 February 2026 were insufficient, at that stage, to outweigh the gravity of the allegations.

The first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was accordingly rejected.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and the Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the trial court for necessary compliance.