Bail granted where no contraband was recovered from applicant and possessing co-accused had already secured bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 632/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

On 5 June 2025, the police allegedly seized 25 bottles of Onerex cough syrup containing codeine, each of 100 ml and totalling 2,500 ml, from the possession of the applicant’s wife and co-accused, Smt. Saroj Sriwas, near Uslapur Railway Station.

No contraband was recovered from the applicant, who was not present at the seizure spot; he surrendered before the trial Court on 2 April 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed by the time of consideration of the bail application.

The co-accused, from whose possession the contraband was seized, had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench.

The applicant, however, had two pending NDPS cases and one pending case under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the alleged recovery of commercial quantity contraband from the co-accused and the applicant’s criminal antecedents?

Whether the absence of recovery from the applicant, the grant of bail to the co-accused, filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant’s subsequent surrender justified release on bail?

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

The alleged substantive offences arose under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, concerning offences relating to manufactured drugs and psychotropic substances, and Section 29, concerning abetment and criminal conspiracy in relation to NDPS offences.

In exercising its bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the fact of recovery or non-recovery from the accused, parity with the co-accused, filing of the charge-sheet, period and circumstances of custody, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The bail order was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation, particularly because the seized cough syrup containing codeine was alleged to be in commercial quantity, and also took note of the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

However, it found that the contraband had been recovered from the possession of the co-accused and not from the applicant, who was not present at the spot.

The applicant’s alleged liability was based principally on the prosecution’s conspiracy allegation and the material collected during investigation.

The Court gave weight to the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had surrendered before the trial Court and remained in custody thereafter, and the co-accused from whose possession the recovery was made had already been granted bail.

Balancing these circumstances against the applicant’s antecedents, the Court concluded that the applicant could be released on bail without prejudging the merits of the prosecution case.

It directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The release was subject to conditions that he would not influence or threaten witnesses, would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and would appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the proceedings.