Bail refused for commercial quantity NDPS offence despite implication through co-accused memorandum statements.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 27/2025

On July 13, 2025, police intercepted a truck (Reg. No. RJ 14 GG 9595) based on a tip-off and seized 119.215 kg of Ganja, valued at approximately Rs. 25 lakhs, from a secret chamber

Two co-accused, Akram Khan and Pappu Singh, were apprehended at the scene.

During the investigation, the co-accused recorded memorandum statements alleging that the applicant supplied the contraband and loaded it from his factory in Odisha

The applicant was arrested on July 15, 2025, and a charge sheet was filed on January 5, 2026

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated solely on the basis of co-accused statements and that no recovery was made directly from his possession

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the recovery was made from co-accused persons and the applicant was implicated via memorandum statements.

2. Whether the seizure of a commercial quantity of contraband and the nature of the allegations regarding organized criminal activity preclude the grant of bail at this stage.

Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which provides stringent penalties for offenses involving commercial quantities of contraband

discretionary powers for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The court also considered the legal weight of memorandum statements of co-accused during the investigation phase and the gravity of offenses involving "commercial quantity" under the NDPS framework, which typically limits the discretion to grant bail unless specific statutory conditions are met

The court evaluated the seriousness of the offense, noting that the quantity of Ganja seized (120 kg) significantly exceeded the commercial quantity threshold

Although the applicant argued that his implication rested solely on the memorandum statements of co-accused and that no physical recovery was made from him, the court prioritized the gravity of the allegations and the indication of "organized criminal activity"

The court reasoned that the nature of the crime—supplying large-scale narcotics—and the severity of the charges under the NDPS Act outweighed the applicant’s arguments regarding false implication

Given the potential impact of such crimes on society, the court determined that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of discretion in favor of the applicant

The court directed the concerned trial court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously

The application was dismissed at this stage