Bail granted where NDPS implication rests solely on inadmissible co-accused statements without recovery or corroborating evidence.

On December 13, 2025, police intercepted two individuals, Ishwarlal and Nageshwar, and seized 25 kilograms of poppy-straw (a non-commercial quantity).

The co-accused stated in police custody that they procured the contraband from the applicant, Shyamlal.

Consequently, the applicant was arrested on December 15, 2025, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

No narcotic substances were recovered from the applicant’s active or conscious possession, nor did the prosecution provide Call Detail Record (CDR) or money trail evidence to link him to the transaction.

The applicant, a 45-year-old labourer with three pending criminal antecedents but no prior convictions, applied for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the submission of the final report.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (provisions for bail).

The court relied on the landmark precedents of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 and Deepak Bhai v. State of Gujarat (2020) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1, which establish that a confession or disclosure made by a co-accused while in police custody is inadmissible as substantive evidence.

Furthermore, the court interpreted Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, holding that its restrictive conditions for bail do not apply when the quantity of contraband involved is non-commercial and there is a lack of prima facie evidence of complicity.

The court observed that the 25 kilograms of poppy-straw seized from the co-accused constituted a non-commercial quantity, thereby neutralizing the strict bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The court noted that the applicant was implicated exclusively on the basis of information provided by co-accused in custody, which lacks evidentiary value under the law laid down in Tofan Singh.

It further highlighted the absence of any corroborative material, such as financial transactions or telephonic records (CDR), to substantiate the allegation of supply.

Considering the applicant’s socio-economic background as a labourer, the completion of the investigation, and the fact that his criminal antecedents did not include prior convictions, the court found no immediate risk of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

It held that the prima facie merits of the applicant’s contentions, coupled with the absence of incriminating recovery, justified release pending trial.

The Court ordered the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount.

The holding was subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must not involve himself in similar offences, must attend all hearing dates, and must not induce or threaten witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.