Bail granted where no contraband was seized and implication rested solely on co-accused memoranda.

Police seized 81.4 grams of heroin from co-accused Rajbir Singh and 10.5 grams from co-accused Kuldeep Singh.

The applicant was implicated on the basis of the co-accused persons’ memorandum statements; no contraband was seized from him.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 21(B) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The applicant submitted that he had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had been in custody since 10 April 2026; the State opposed bail.

1. Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail when no contraband was seized from him and his implication rested on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

2. Whether the applicant’s custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and likely delay in concluding trial supported grant of bail.

The application was brought under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for consideration of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The alleged offences were under Sections 21(B) and 27(A) of the NDPS Act.

The Court assessed the bail request by considering the absence of a seizure from the applicant, the basis for his implication, his criminal antecedents, the status of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the anticipated duration of trial.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the applicant had not been found in possession of contraband and had been implicated solely through the memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

It also considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, he had remained in judicial custody since 10 April 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

On these combined circumstances, the Court concluded that he should be released on bail.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial and requiring the applicant to attend each hearing until disposal of the trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s decision on the merits.