Co-accused's uncorroborated memorandum statement is insufficient to sustain detention under the NDPS Act.

The applicant was arrested on February 7, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 820/2025 for alleged offences under Sections 8/20, 21, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that 1 kg 300 gms of ganja and 13 gms of smack powder were recovered from the co-accused, Jyoti Kushwah (the applicant's wife).

The applicant was subsequently arrayed as an accused based solely on a memorandum statement provided by the co-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The State opposed the bail application, citing the applicant's involvement in sixteen previous criminal cases.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS when the primary evidence against him is the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

2. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents and the nature of the alleged offence outweigh the principles of personal liberty and the likelihood of prolonged pre-trial detention.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of bail.

The court considered the evidentiary value of memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, noting the settled position that such statements require independent corroboration to establish involvement.

Judicial principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema to the concept of liberty".

The court evaluated the applicant's contention that there was no independent or corroborative material beyond the co-accused's statement to prima facie connect him to the seized contraband.

While the State highlighted the applicant’s sixteen criminal antecedents, the court shifted its focus to the procedural reality that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

The court reasoned that since the evidence was currently limited to a co-accused's memorandum and the applicant is a permanent resident of Vidisha (reducing flight risk), the interest of liberty necessitated his release.

The court concluded that the facts and circumstances justified bail, provided strict conditions were imposed to prevent tampering or recidivism.

It held that the applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The relief was granted subject to several conditions, including that the applicant shall not commit any further offences during the trial—failing which the bail would be automatically cancelled—and shall not leave the country without prior permission.