Habitual offender status justifies bail denial despite implication solely through co-accused memorandum statements under NDPS Act.

On January 14, 2026, police intercepted a vehicle following a tip-off and recovered 19.423 kg of ganja from the joint possession of four individuals (including two juveniles)

During the investigation, co-accused Ajay Sahu and Anand Ram Gaikwad provided memorandum statements alleging that the applicant, Mahendra Verma, financed the procurement of the contraband from Odisha for delivery at Abhanpur

The applicant was subsequently arrested.

The applicant contended that no contraband was recovered from his person, the implication was based solely on uncorroborated memorandum statements, and he was being targeted due to previous police enmity

The State opposed bail, highlighting that the applicant is the key conspirator and a habitual offender with four criminal antecedents, including a pending case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for an offense under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, given that his implication is based on memorandum statements of co-accused without direct recovery

2. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents and the alleged misuse of bail in a previous NDPS case disentitle him to the grant of bail

The Court considered Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act and Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (relating to the power of the High Court to grant bail)

memorandum statements of co-accused can prima facie indicate involvement at the bail stage

the precedent established in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which mandates that the criminal antecedents of an accused are a vital consideration for the grant or cancellation of bail

The Court observed that although no contraband was directly seized from the applicant, the memorandum statements of the co-accused prima facie established his role as the financier and director of the illegal transportation

The Court placed significant weight on the applicant’s criminal history, noting he has four prior cases, including one under the NDPS Act where he is currently on bail

The Court reasoned that the applicant’s involvement in a fresh offense while on bail for a similar crime demonstrates he is a habitual offender who has misused the liberty granted to him previously

Applying the ratio of Deepak Yadav, the Court determined that the gravity of the offense, the role of the applicant as a key conspirator, and his conduct as a repeat offender outweighed the arguments regarding the lack of physical seizure and the non-commercial quantity of the contraband

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously

The Office was instructed to transmit the order to the concerned trial court for compliance