In commercial-quantity NDPS cases, co-accused disclosure inadmissibility cannot alone justify anticipatory bail.

Pursuant to secret information, a truck was intercepted at Sonia Vihar, Delhi, on 20 May 2025, and 348.176 kg of ganja was recovered from two persons, Intejar Malik and Rizwan, concealed in seventeen plastic bags among watermelons. FIR No. 122/2025 was registered at Police Station Crime Branch under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act; a chargesheet was filed against Malik and Rizwan, neither of whom named Vivek Jain during investigation

On 8 October 2025, Raghuveer Roy was arrested and allegedly disclosed that 150 kg of the recovered ganja was intended for delivery to Jain. Following notices, raids and Jain’s failure to appear, non-bailable warrants were issued and proclamation proceedings under Section 84 BNSS were initiated

The Special Judge granted temporary protection and directed Jain to join investigation; Jain joined between 11 and 15 December 2025. However, anticipatory bail was ultimately refused on 20 December 2025

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the applicant’s implication, based substantially on a co-accused’s disclosure statement and unsupported by recovery from him, justified grant of anticipatory bail at the pre-arrest stage?

Whether the existence of outstanding non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings, together with alleged non-cooperation and criminal antecedents, disentitled the applicant from anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 BNSS, corresponding to Section 438 CrPC, governing anticipatory bail, and Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Since 348.176 kg of ganja exceeded the commercial-quantity threshold of 20 kg, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) applied: the Court had to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty and that he was not likely to commit an offence while on bail

Under Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429, Section 37 must be applied strictly in view of the serious social consequences of narcotic trafficking

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, establishes that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and is ordinarily unavailable where warrants or proclamation proceedings are pending, save in exceptional cases

The bail factors in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, and Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, include the prima facie case, gravity of the offence, antecedents, likelihood of absconding or repeating the offence, and the possibility of obstructing justice

Although Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, restricts the evidentiary use of confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, holds that the issue may be considered at the regular-bail or trial stage and cannot, by itself, justify pre-arrest bail

The Court held that the recovered ganja was commercial quantity, thereby attracting Section 37’s stringent twin conditions

Jain’s reliance on Tofan Singh and the absence of recovery from him was not sufficient at the anticipatory-bail stage, particularly in light of Samarth Kumar

The Court found that his implication was not based solely on Raghuveer Roy’s disclosure: CDR connectivity across seven mobile numbers, unexplained financial transactions, and official prison records showing three visits to Roy constituted independent corroborative circumstances at the prima facie stage

The Court further treated the outstanding non-bailable warrants and pending proclamation proceedings under Section 84 BNSS as materially weakening Jain’s claim to extraordinary pre-arrest protection, especially since they arose from his earlier failure to join the investigation

His prior involvement in two other NDPS FIRs was also relevant to assessing the likelihood of reoffending under Section 37, notwithstanding that he had been discharged in one matter and granted regular bail in the other

Considering the commercial quantity, corroborative material, alleged evasion and non-cooperation, antecedents, and the asserted need for custodial interrogation to uncover the wider trafficking conspiracy, the Court concluded that the statutory requirements for anticipatory bail were not met

The connected miscellaneous application was also disposed of, and any interim protection earlier granted was vacated with immediate effect

The Court clarified that, if Jain surrendered and applied for regular bail, that application would be considered in accordance with law