Regular bail granted in an NDPS case involving below-commercial-quantity contraband, following bail to co-accused.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 286/2025 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, for offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, following the arrest of a co-accused on the basis of secret information, the applicant was implicated through the co-accused’s memorandum statement and that 3.160 grams of brown sugar was recovered from his possession.

The applicant denied the alleged recovery and contended that he had been implicated solely on the basis of the co-accused’s statement.

He also relied on the grant of bail to co-accused persons, filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 23 December 2025, and the likelihood of delay in trial.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the co-accused had been granted bail; it also pointed out one prior criminal antecedent under the Arms Act.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The prosecution invoked Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning possession of contraband and criminal conspiracy or abetment in relation to narcotic offences.

In exercising its bail discretion, the Court considered the quantity of the alleged contraband, the fact that it was below commercial quantity, the applicant’s length of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the probable delay in conclusion of trial, and parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The Court found that the alleged contraband recovered—3.160 grams of brown sugar—was less than commercial quantity, thereby making the case appropriate for consideration under ordinary bail principles.

It also considered the applicant’s contention that the case rested on the memorandum statement of a co-accused and that the contraband had not been seized from his possession, although it did not finally determine those evidentiary issues at the bail stage.

The filing of the charge-sheet reduced the need for continued custodial detention, while the applicant’s custody since 23 December 2025 and the anticipated delay in trial weighed in favour of release.

The Court further relied on parity because the co-accused had already been granted bail in connected matters.

The single criminal antecedent under the Arms Act was noted but was not considered sufficient to outweigh these circumstances.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further authorised the trial court to proceed in accordance with law in the event of misuse of bail or unjustified absence, and a certified copy was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.