Interrogatory statements of co-accused regarding drug supply justify denial of bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases.

The applicant, Mohammed Kaish, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) following his arrest on 10.01.2026

The prosecution alleged that 263.68 grams of prohibited narcotic tablets (a commercial quantity) were recovered from three co-accused persons: Triloki Yadav, Cheman Vishwakarma, and Hakim Khan

While no contraband was directly seized from the applicant, the co-accused stated in their memorandum statements that they purchased the narcotics from him

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based solely on these statements, whereas the State opposed bail citing the commercial quantity and the applicant's role in the supply chain

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a case involving commercial quantities of psychotropic substances where the implication is based on memorandum statements of co-accused

The Court applied the provisions of Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which regulate the possession and sale of psychotropic substances

The court also considered the rigors of the NDPS Act regarding "commercial quantity" notifications, which heighten the threshold for granting bail

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretionary powers under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Court observed that while the physical recovery of 263.68 grams of narcotic tablets was made from the co-accused, this amount significantly exceeds the "commercial quantity" threshold defined under the NDPS Act

The Court noted that the memorandum statements of the co-accused directly linked the applicant as the supplier of the prohibited substances

Upon perusal of the case diary, the Court found that these facts prima facie established the applicant's involvement in an "organized illicit trafficking of narcotic substances"

Despite the applicant’s argument that no direct seizure was made from his person, the Court prioritized the gravity of the offense and the evidence of his role in the supply chain over the duration of his incarceration

The bail application was rejected

the Court granted liberty to the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously