Prima facie syndicate involvement attracts Section 37 NDPS rigours despite no recovery from the applicant.

On 30 October 2025, police seized 130 bottles containing 13 litres of Triprolidine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate syrup from the joint possession of co-accused Sanjay Tiwari and Vasu Chandrakar.

During investigation, they implicated Vivek Dewangan and another person.

The case diary recorded allegations that the applicant was part of a syndicate, was assigned to collect the contraband from a bus and hand it to other co-accused, and had financial transactions with co-accused Ajay Yadav.

The applicant surrendered on 14 May 2026 and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that no contraband was recovered from him and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged syndicate and the quantity seized.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail where the contraband was recovered from co-accused persons and the applicant’s alleged involvement was based on their statements and other material in the case diary

Whether the alleged recovery of a commercial quantity and the material indicating the applicant’s role attracted the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for an application for regular bail.

The Court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, observing that its rigour applies where a prima facie case involves a commercial quantity of contraband.

It also stated that, at the bail stage, the Court’s role is confined to assessing whether a prima facie case exists.

Although no contraband was recovered from the applicant, the Court considered the alleged recovery of a quantity well above the commercial threshold from the co-accused, their statements describing the applicant’s assigned role in the alleged syndicate, and the financial transactions between the applicant and Ajay Yadav.

On that material, the Court found a prima facie indication of the applicant’s involvement in the illegal transit of the contraband and held that Section 37’s rigour applied.

It rejected the applicant’s first bail application.