P&H HC Makes NDPS Accused’s Interim Bail Absolute After Police Fail To Explain 19 Injuries Noted After His Arrest

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in an FIR alleging an offence under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The prosecution alleged that 1,020 tablets of Alprazolam (the State stated that 1,120 tablets were counted) were recovered from him.

On 2 November 2026, the Court noted an MLR recording 19 injuries, the petitioner’s allegation of assault at the police station, and injuries noticed by the Magistrate; it granted interim bail and directed the Commissioner of Police to take disciplinary action concerning the police official’s failure to produce the arrest memo.

At the subsequent hearing, the State produced an arrest memo dated 10 June 2026. It recorded the petitioner’s refusal of medical examination but did not mention any existing injuries.

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the procedural basis for the petitioner’s application for regular bail.

The FIR alleged an offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, but the Court expressly made no determination on the merits of the allegations or the legality of the alleged recovery.

No precedent was cited.

The Court’s reasoning rested on whether the investigating agency had satisfactorily explained the petitioner’s injuries and the circumstances of his medical examination and production before the Magistrate.

The Court considered the arrest memo’s entry that the petitioner declined medical examination insufficient to explain the 19 injuries recorded in the MLR and noticed by the Magistrate, particularly given the recorded history of assault at the police station on the date of apprehension.

It also questioned why the petitioner was not promptly medically examined or produced before the Magistrate with a request for permission to do so; the absence of police remand further informed the Court’s concern about the police conduct.

On those circumstances, the Court made interim bail absolute without expressing an opinion on the merits or recovery.

The petitioner was not required to furnish fresh bail or surety bonds if the earlier bonds had already been furnished, but was directed to file an undertaking or affidavit before the Trial Court confirming that those bonds remained operative and that he would comply with the bail conditions.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.