Regular bail denied where an alleged trafficking role and pending similar NDPS cases indicate habitual offending.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after his arrest in Crime No. 276/2026, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Police allegedly recovered 98 ampoules of Pentazocine Lactate Injection from co-accused Manish Dandariya; the applicant was implicated during investigation on the basis of the co-accused’s memorandum statement, and no contraband was seized from the applicant.

The applicant argued that the active ingredient amounted to only 2.94 grams, that the co-accused had been granted bail, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s alleged role in drug trafficking and two pending NDPS cases.

The applicant had been in custody since 2 July 2026.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the applicable NDPS Act considerations.

2. Whether the absence of a recovery from the applicant and the asserted low quantity of the active ingredient justified bail despite the alleged role attributed to him and his pending NDPS cases.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the Court to consider an application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The State relied on the statutory restriction on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The order does not set out or separately apply the twin conditions under Section 37; it considers the allegations, the material collected, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the applicant’s pending similar cases in deciding whether to grant bail.

The Court acknowledged that no contraband had been recovered from the applicant and that his alleged involvement was based on investigation material, including the co-accused’s memorandum statement.

It held that the evidentiary value and admissibility of that material were matters for trial, but considered the allegations alongside the other circumstances rather than in isolation.

The Court also relied on the applicant’s two pending NDPS cases of a similar nature, treating them as live antecedents indicative of habitual offending.

Considering these factors, the alleged active role, and the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court found that the applicant had not established a case for bail.

The Court did so without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.