Lack of conscious possession and hostile witnesses entitles driver to bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases.

On February 15, 2025, police intercepted a vehicle and seized 86.250 kg of ganja from the possession of co-accused Raju Sahu and Ramraj

Investigation revealed that the vehicle owner, Arun Kumar Khunte, employed the applicant, Santosh Kumar Lahare, as a driver

The applicant was not present during the seizure but was arrested on June 19, 2025, after the owner disclosed that the applicant had delivered the vehicle to Raju Sahu on his instructions

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending he had no knowledge of the contraband and was merely acting as an employee

1. Whether the applicant, as a driver not present at the time of seizure, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS for an offense involving a commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act

2. Whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence to establish "conscious knowledge" of the contraband on the part of the applicant

The court primarily applied Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which penalizes the production, possession, or transportation of cannabis

It further applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

The court considered the statutory bar against bail for commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, balanced against the requirement of establishing "conscious possession" and the right to liberty during a prolonged trial

The Court observed that while the quantity seized was commercial, the applicant’s role was limited to that of a hired driver acting under the instructions of the vehicle owner

The Court emphasized that the applicant was not present during the interception or seizure, and the record lacked prima facie material to establish that he had "conscious knowledge" of the contraband inside the vehicle

Distinguishing the applicant’s case from the co-accused whose bail pleas were rejected, the Court noted that several material prosecution witnesses had already been examined and failed to support the prosecution’s case

Furthermore, the Court factored in the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his continuous judicial custody since June 2025, concluding that further detention was unnecessary as the trial would take considerable time

The holding clarified that a driver acting on an owner's instructions, without prima facie evidence of knowledge of the contraband and absent from the scene of seizure, may be entitled to bail despite the commercial quantity involved

The release was made subject to conditions, including mandatory attendance at trial and restrictions against seeking unnecessary adjournments