Bail granted in NDPS Act case; co-accused granted bail; limited applicability of Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act.

The applicant, Hidayat @ Faizal, filed a first application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 136/2024 registered at Police Station - Jaora City, District-Ratlam (M.P.), for offenses punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since August 20, 2025.

The prosecution alleges that on April 3, 2024, SI Raghuveer Joshi intercepted a motorcycle and recovered 65 grams of MDMA Drugs from the joint possession of co-accused Nitin, Shakir @ Murga, Nadim, and Umar.

These co-accused, in their statements under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, informed the police that they had purchased the MDMA Drugs from the applicant.

Based on these statements, the applicant was apprehended on August 20, 2025.

Two criminal antecedents are noted against the applicant, but the cases are pending trial, and the applicant has not been convicted.

Co-accused Nitin and Shakir have already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant, Hidayat @ Faizal, should be granted bail in a case registered under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, given the circumstances.

2. Whether the interdict under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act applies against the applicant.

The court primarily considered Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (implied, as it is the general provision for bail in such cases, though Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is cited as the application basis).

Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act (regarding restrictions on bail for certain offenses under the Act).

The principle laid down in *Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu* [(2021) 4 SCC 1], which holds that statements made to police custody are not admissible.

The court also noted Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam concerning co-accused statements.

The court analyzed the applicant's request for bail, noting that he was implicated solely based on the statement of co-accused in police custody, which is generally not admissible in light of *Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu*.

No incriminating material or narcotic contraband was recovered from the applicant's direct possession.

The court considered that the final report had been submitted, and there was no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the applicant.

Crucially, the court observed that co-accused Nitin and Shakir had already been granted bail.

The court also mentioned the general factors for bail, such as the applicant's socio-economic status, his dependent family, and the absence of a criminal conviction.

The court concluded that the interdict contained under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act would not apply against the applicant in these specific facts and circumstances.

It directed that the applicant, Hidayat @ Faizal, be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The bail was granted subject to conditions including appearance in court, refraining from similar offenses, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The court explicitly stated that the observations were for the present application only and that in case of a breach of conditions, the trial court could cancel bail.