Commercial quantity recovery from shared residence and warrant issuance justify denying regular and anticipatory bail.

On July 28, 2025, police conducted a raid on the residence of the accused, Indrajit Debbarma, based on secret information, resulting in the seizure of 141 kg of suspected ganja.

Indrajit Debbarma was arrested on July 29, 2025, while his two sons, Bhagirath and Bhabendra Debbarma, allegedly fled the scene.

A charge sheet was subsequently filed under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, naming the sons as absconders, leading the Special Judge to issue warrants of arrest against them.

Indrajit Debbarma sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, while his sons sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

1. Whether the arrest of the primary accused was vitiated by the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in a language understandable to him, as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in a serious NDPS case involving commercial quantities, especially after being declared absconders and having warrants issued against them.

3. Whether the statement of a co-accused in police custody can form the sole basis for implicating other accused persons at the bail stage.

The Court applied the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which mandates that bail should not be granted for commercial quantities unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty.

It relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500 regarding the mandatory communication of the grounds of arrest.

Regarding anticipatory bail for absconders, the court followed Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) 12 SCC 382, which held that while not an absolute bar, courts should be extremely cautious in granting pre-arrest bail to those defying warrants.

The court also noted P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) regarding the inadmissibility of police confessions against co-accused under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

The Court rejected Indrajit Debbarma’s plea regarding the grounds of arrest, noting that the arrest occurred prior to the Mihir Rajesh Shah judgment and that the arrest memo, which he signed, explicitly mentioned the recovery of 141 kg of ganja from his dwelling, satisfying Section 47 of the BNSS.

For the sons, the Court acknowledged that while a co-accused's confession is generally inadmissible, independent evidence such as Ration Cards and Records of Rights (ROR) proved they resided in the same house where the commercial quantity was seized.

Furthermore, police witnesses testified that the sons fled upon the arrival of the raiding party.

Applying the Srikant Upadhyay precedent, the Court reasoned that since the petitioners were absconding and warrants had been issued following a charge sheet, this was not an "exceptional case" warranting the exercise of discretionary powers for anticipatory bail.

The Court held that the primary accused was sufficiently informed of his grounds of arrest and that the sons failed to meet the high threshold for pre-arrest bail in a case involving commercial quantities of narcotics and active warrants.

The trial court records were ordered to be returned, and the Case Diary was returned to the Public Prosecutor.