Regular bail denied after co-accused’s applications were rejected on merits.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 0107/2025 registered at Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 15(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, during night patrolling on 07.06.2025, police received information regarding an abandoned Tata Ultra truck bearing registration No. RJ-19-GJ-7447 at Dhanwar Check Post and recovered 90 plastic sacks containing 14 quintals and 44 kilograms of illegal Doda, valued at approximately ₹1.30 crore

The applicant contended that the contraband was not recovered from his possession, that he was neither the registered owner nor the driver of the vehicle, and that the FIR identified co-accused Raju Singh as its driver/owner

He further relied on the examination of the two independent seizure witnesses, Santosh Kushwaha and Sakendra Saket, who allegedly turned hostile and stated that police had obtained their signatures on blank papers

The applicant had no criminal antecedents and had remained in custody since 24.06.2025

The State opposed bail, noting that the charge-sheet had been filed and that bail applications of co-accused persons had previously been rejected on merits

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session

The prosecution allegations involved offences under Sections 15(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, relating respectively to contravention involving commercial-quantity poppy straw, liability concerning premises or conveyance used for the offence, and abetment or criminal conspiracy

The Court applied the principle that the grant of bail depends upon an assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the treatment of similarly placed co-accused, and relied particularly on the prior rejection of the bail applications of co-accused Raju Singh, Mithun Munda, Raj Munda and Uttam Roy on merits

No separate precedent or detailed application of the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was recorded in the order

Although the applicant relied on the alleged absence of possession, the lack of documentary or physical connection with the truck, the hostile seizure witnesses, absence of criminal antecedents and prolonged custody

the Court treated the prior merits-based rejection of bail applications filed by the co-accused as the decisive circumstance

After considering the parties’ submissions and examining the case diary

it concluded that the applicant had not established a case for bail.

The order does not separately analyse the effect of the hostile witnesses, the applicant’s alleged non-connection with the vehicle, or the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court directed or expected the trial court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment

A certified copy was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance