Bail granted for intermediate quantity of narcotics where accused lacks antecedents and no recovery despite memorandum statement.

The applicant, Swaroop Soni, filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

On January 15, 2026, police apprehended one Balvir Singh with 205 grams of opium.

Balvir Singh’s memorandum statement led to the arrest of Ram Babu, who was found with an additional 200 grams of opium.

Ram Babu alleged in his statement that he procured the narcotics from the applicant, Swaroop Soni, leading to the latter's arrest on January 16, 2026.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, as no contraband was seized from his "conscious possession".

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the narcotic substance recovered was of an intermediate quantity and his implication was based on a co-accused's memorandum statement.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

Sections 22(b), 27(d), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Principles of criminal jurisprudence which consider the "conscious possession" of contraband, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial in determining bail eligibility.

Procedural mandates under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for bail conditions.

The Court examined the nature and gravity of the allegations alongside the specific facts of the seizure.

It noted that the quantity of opium involved was an "intermediate quantity," which does not attract the stringent bail restrictions applicable to "commercial quantities" under the NDPS Act.

The Court took significant note of the applicant’s clean record—having no previous criminal antecedents—and the fact that he had been in judicial custody since January 16, 2026.

Furthermore, since the charge-sheet had already been filed, the Court reasoned that the applicant’s continued detention was unnecessary as the conclusion of the trial would likely take a considerable amount of time.

The Court held that given the intermediate quantity of the substance and the applicant’s lack of antecedents, he was entitled to release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

The release was made subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence at trial hearings under penalty of Section 269 of the BNS, and compliance with court appearances for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.