Regular bail denied where alleged ganja supplier posed a substantial risk of absconding.

On 31 October 2023, officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau intercepted a Maruti Brezza vehicle in District Mahasamund and allegedly recovered 16.094 kilograms of ganja. Two occupants, Kamal Raghuvanshi and Ajay Kushwaha, were arrested and later convicted by the Special Court (NDPS) on 7 October 2024. During investigation, their memorandum statements allegedly identified a person named “Padhan” as the supplier and disclosed mobile number 9937587578, which was registered in the name of the applicant, Vrindaban Padhan. The applicant was arrested on 22 June 2026 after a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was served upon him; his mobile phone was also seized. He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The NCB opposed bail on the ground that the applicant was the supplier of the seized contraband, that the case arose from the 2023 seizure, and that he was likely to abscond if released.

1. Whether the applicant, accused of supplying 16.094 kilograms of ganja in violation of Sections 8, 20(B)(ii)(b), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

2. Whether the possibility of the applicant absconding, together with the allegations arising from the co-accused’s statements and the applicant’s alleged connection with the disclosed mobile number, justified refusal of bail?

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, along with Sections 8, 20(B)(ii)(b), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, relating respectively to prohibited dealings in narcotic substances, possession of ganja, liability of persons permitting premises or vehicles to be used for an offence, and criminal conspiracy or abetment.

The Court applied the general bail principle that relief may be refused where the allegations disclose a serious role in the offence and there is a substantial likelihood that the accused may abscond or evade the proceedings.

The Court noted that the prosecution alleged that the applicant was the supplier of the 16.094 kilograms of ganja recovered from the co-accused. The co-accused had allegedly named “Padhan” and provided a mobile number registered in the applicant’s name; the applicant was subsequently arrested after his statement was recorded and his phone seized.

Although the applicant asserted innocence, prolonged custody and the anticipated duration of trial, the Court gave greater weight at the bail stage to the alleged supplier role, the conviction of the co-accused in the connected case, and the NCB’s contention that the applicant might abscond. On an overall assessment of the case diary and surrounding circumstances, the Court held that the applicant did not merit the discretionary relief of regular bail at that stage.

The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.