Financial links and co-accused statements establishing involvement in commercial quantity drug trafficking justify bail rejection.

On August 3, 2025, acting on secret information, police conducted a search at Kamla Vihar, Raipur, resulting in the seizure of 10.23 grams of heroin from Suvit Shrivastava and 402.64 grams of heroin from Lavjeet Singh.

During the investigation, the memorandum statements of the co-accused implicated the applicant, Dinesh Baghel, leading to his arrest on December 2, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant admitted to involvement in the illegal transportation of "chitta" and that bank records showed a transfer of ₹83,000 from the applicant’s account to a co-accused for the procurement of contraband.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing false implication, lack of direct possession, and no prior criminal record.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the commercial quantity of contraband seized and the evidence of financial transactions involving the applicant?

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

Sections 21(C), 27, 27(A), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which prescribe stringent penalties for the possession and financing of commercial quantities of narcotics.

Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhtia (BNS), 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The Court rejected the applicant’s plea for bail by connecting the material evidence to the gravity of the offence.

Although the applicant was not in direct possession of the heroin at the time of the raid, the Court found that his involvement was prima facie established by his memorandum statement and corroborated by a bank transfer of ₹83,000 to a co-accused for the drug trade.

The Court noted that the total seizure of 402.64 grams of heroin constituted a "commercial quantity," thereby invoking the restrictive bail conditions under the NDPS Act.

The Court observed that bail applications for multiple co-accused in the same crime (MCRC Nos. 7965/2025, 2028/2026, and 10347/2025) had previously been rejected.

Given the nature of the organized illegal transportation for profit, the Court concluded that the gravity of the offence outweighed the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents.

The Court held that the evidence of financial transactions for the procurement of commercial quantities of narcotics disentitled the applicant to relief.

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.