Commercial-quantity recovery, co-accused disclosures, and call records attracted the NDPS Section 37 bail bar.

On 12 March 2026, police seized 42,358 opium plants, stated to weigh 1,883.76 kg, from co-accused Sahadur and Thuila Nageshiya.

During investigation, they implicated Rajan Yadav and another person as cultivators and suppliers.

The applicant was arrested on 11 April 2026 and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He argued that the case against him rested on co-accused statements and call-detail records, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had no prior criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged commercial quantity and the co-accused’s statements.

The judgment describes the seized material as opium plants in its account of the seizure but later refers to it as ganja.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, despite the alleged recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband from co-accused persons.

2. Whether the co-accused’s statements and call-detail records provided a sufficient prima facie basis to attract the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act against the applicant.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, was the provision under which the applicant sought regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act.

The Court stated that, at the bail stage, its role was confined to determining whether a prima facie case existed; it further held that recovery of a commercial quantity from co-accused persons, coupled with material implicating the applicant, attracted the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The judgment did not set out the specific conditions under Section 37.

The Court considered the alleged recovery of 1,883.76 kg—described as well above commercial quantity—and the co-accused’s statements identifying the applicant as a cultivator and supplier.

It also noted that call-detail records showed 31 calls received from the co-accused over seven months and 10 returned calls.

Taken together, this material was sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to indicate the applicant’s involvement in the alleged illegal activity and bring the case within the rigour of Section 37.

The Court therefore declined to grant bail.

and dismissed the applicant’s first bail application.