Bail granted where implication rests solely on co-accused statement without recovery of non-commercial quantity.

The police, acting on a tip, intercepted two individuals, Chandrashekhar Sahu and Tushar Sahu, and seized 15.700 kg of Ganja from their possession.

During the investigation, co-accused Chandrashekhar Sahu recorded a memorandum statement alleging that the contraband was purchased from one Vimal Kumar and was intended for delivery to the applicant, Akhil Kumar Jaiswal.

Based solely on this memorandum statement, the applicant was arrested on January 5, 2026.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, contending that no recovery was made from his possession, Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with, and he had no prior criminal record.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under the NDPS Act when the arrest was based on a co-accused’s memorandum statement and no physical recovery was made from the applicant.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail.

The case involved Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, regarding the possession and abetment of contraband transportation.

The Court also considered the legal distinction between intermediate and commercial quantities of Ganja under the NDPS Act, noting that 15.700 kg falls below the commercial threshold.

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

The Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, indicating the completion of the primary investigation.

Critically, the Court noted that the 15.700 kg of Ganja—an amount less than the commercial quantity—was not recovered from the "exclusive possession" of the applicant, but rather from the co-accused persons.

The Court weighed the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and his period of incarceration since January 5, 2026, against the likelihood that the trial would not conclude in the near future.

Applying these factors, the Court determined that the gravity of the offence, when balanced against the nature of the evidence (a memorandum statement) and the lack of physical recovery, favored the protection of the applicant’s liberty.

The holding was predicated on the lack of recovery from the applicant's possession and the intermediate quantity of the contraband.

The Court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and must comply with trial proceedings under threat of action under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.