Confessional statements of co-accused and nexus in commercial quantity trafficking justify denial of regular bail.

On April 5, 2026, police intercepted a motorcycle carrying three individuals—Munna Barve, Mikendra @ Mukesh Dev, and Dileep Suna—near Village Medhaki.

A search of a sack in their possession yielded 21 kilograms of Ganja.

During investigation, it was alleged that the applicant, Tejshankar Kulmi, was part of a syndicate involved in the illegal trafficking of the contraband.

Specifically, investigators found that the applicant, in connivance with co-accused persons, had previously sold 5 kilograms of Ganja in March 2026 and was actively involved in the current chain of transportation.

The applicant was arrested on April 12, 2026, and seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail notwithstanding the seizure of a commercial quantity of contraband from his alleged co-conspirators.

The court primarily applied Sections 8/20(b), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which regulate the prohibition, punishment, and conspiracy related to narcotic substances.

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, which holds that confessional statements under the NDPS Act are not substantive evidence.

The court balanced the constitutional principle of "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" against the restrictive provisions for bail involving "commercial quantities" under the NDPS Act.

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds that no recovery was made from his exclusive possession and that his implication was based solely on co-accused statements, which are inadmissible under the Tofan Singh precedent.

The court scrutinized the case diary and found material indicating the applicant’s "active involvement and participation" in a trafficking chain.

The court noted that the 21 kilograms of Ganja seized from the co-accused falls within the "commercial quantity" category.

Despite the applicant’s claim of being a mere driver with incidental acquaintances, the court found sufficient prima facie evidence of connivance in the illegal purchase and sale of Ganja spanning from March 2026 to the date of the offense.

It held that given the gravity of the offense, the commercial quantity of the contraband involved, and the evidence of the applicant's active role in the supply chain, the benefit of bail could not be extended at this stage.

The Court dismissed the bail application.