Bail warranted where NDPS prosecution rests solely on inadmissible co-accused disclosure without direct recovery.

The applicant, Bapan Das, was arrested in connection with A.D. Nagar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2025, subsequently renumbered as Special (NDPS) No. 159 of 2025, involving alleged offences under Sections 21(b), 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the applicant and other accused persons.

The applicant had remained in custody for approximately 424 days, and earlier bail applications had been rejected by the Special Judge.

He contended that no contraband was recovered from him, his name arose only from the alleged disclosure statements of co-accused persons, no grounds of arrest were supplied, and no prosecution witness had yet been examined.

The State opposed bail, asserting that a prima facie case existed and that the trial was in progress.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the offences alleged under the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the alleged disclosure statements of co-accused persons, in the absence of direct recovery or a specific connection in the seizure documents, constituted a sufficient prima facie basis to continue the applicant in custody.

3. Whether the prolonged custody and lack of progress in the trial justified granting bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, along with the offences charged under Sections 21(b), 22(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

It relied on the principle that a disclosure statement made by a co-accused to the police is generally not admissible as substantive evidence against another co-accused.

The Court also considered the constitutional safeguards relating to arrest under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, as raised by the applicant, and the general bail considerations of direct recovery, prima facie involvement, length of custody, criminal antecedents and the progress of trial.

The Court found that the seizure list recorded recovery of contraband from other accused persons and did not name Bapan Das under the column identifying the possessor; nor did it bear his signature.

The arrest memo likewise did not establish a direct connection between the applicant and the recovered contraband, as its stated ground of arrest referred merely to the case and medical report.

Since the applicant’s alleged involvement was substantially based on statements made by co-accused persons during police interrogation, and such statements could not ordinarily constitute substantive evidence against him, the Court held that the prosecution case disclosed only a weak prima facie link.

This weakness, coupled with the absence of direct recovery, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, his prolonged custody of approximately 424 days and the absence of meaningful progress in recording evidence, cumulatively justified the grant of bail.

Bapan Das was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala.

He was further directed to appear before the Investigating Officer every day between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., cooperate with any further investigation, and not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without prior permission of the trial court.