NDPS bail granted where implication rests solely on co-accused statement without direct recovery or corroboration.

The applicant, Manaram, sought his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The case originated from the interception of an Eicher truck in 2020, where 8 quintals and 2 grams of poppy straw were found concealed under onion bags.

While the driver fled, subsequent investigations and statements from arrested co-accused (Bablesh) implicated the applicant as an associate involved in loading the contraband.

The applicant was arrested on February 6, 2026.

He contended that his implication was based solely on the inadmissible self-incriminating statements of a co-accused, with no recovery of contraband from his possession and no established money trail or Call Detail Record (CDR) linking him to the crime.

1. Whether the bar on granting bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is attracted when the primary evidence against the accused is the statement of a co-accused given in police custody.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the lack of physical recovery, absence of criminal antecedents, and the principle of parity with other co-accused.

Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Confessions made to police officers and statements of co-accused in custody are generally inadmissible as substantive evidence, as established in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 and Deepak Bhai v. State of Gujarat (2020) 2 SCC (Cri.).

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The court observed that the narcotic contraband was not seized from the "direct and immediate possession" of the applicant.

It noted the absence of corroborative evidence, such as CDRs or a money trail, to substantiate the applicant's complicity beyond the statements of the co-accused.

Applying the ratio from Tofan Singh, the court determined that the veracity of the prosecution’s case would only be settled during trial, and at this stage, the contentions of the applicant appeared prima facie meritorious.

Consequently, the court held that the stringent interdict of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act did not operate against the applicant.

The court further factored in that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, possessed family responsibilities, and that other co-accused had already been granted bail, thus reducing the risks of recidivism or fleeing from justice.

The Court ordered the release of the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to specific conditions: the applicant must attend all hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

The Court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not affect the final merits of the trial.