Sale agreement alone does not justify anticipatory bail when contraband is recovered from the registered owner’s vehicle.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Crime No. 453/2025 registered at Police Station Chorhata, District Rewa, for offences under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25 and 25-A of the NDPS Act and Section 5/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Drug Control Act.

The prosecution alleged that 151 bottles of cough syrup, each containing 100 ml and allegedly containing Codeine Phosphate, were seized from vehicle No. MP-17-CA-3942.

The applicant contended that he had no connection with the alleged contraband and that the vehicle had been sold and handed over to co-accused Aryan Saket under an agreement dated 1 August 2025.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that the vehicle remained registered in the applicant’s name, the recovery was substantial, and the investigation concerning the source, destination and transportation of the contraband was still in progress.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, in the context of offences under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25 and 25-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 5/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Drug Control Act.

The Court applied the principle that, at the stage of bail, a defence requiring factual verification—such as the alleged sale or handing over of a vehicle—cannot ordinarily be treated as conclusive proof of non-involvement.

It further recognised that conscious possession and the precise role of an accused are fact-sensitive questions requiring assessment of the surrounding circumstances and cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined at the preliminary stage of bail consideration.

The Court also considered the seriousness and quantity of the alleged contraband, the vehicle’s registration in the applicant’s name, and the ongoing investigation as relevant factors in determining whether anticipatory bail should be granted.

The Court found that the applicant’s reliance on the agreement dated 1 August 2025 did not conclusively sever his connection with the vehicle or the alleged offence, particularly because the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered continued to stand registered in his name.

The alleged recovery of 151 bottles of Codeine Phosphate cough syrup was considered a significant circumstance that could not be disregarded at the anticipatory-bail stage.

Although the contraband was not recovered from the applicant’s physical possession, that circumstance alone did not exclude the possibility of his involvement, and the questions of conscious possession, knowledge and the vehicle’s use required further investigation.

Given the gravity of the offences, the quantity of the alleged contraband, the applicant’s registered ownership of the vehicle and the incomplete investigation, the Court held that it could not conclude that there was no prima facie material warranting further inquiry.

It held that the alleged sale and handover of the vehicle, without verification during investigation or trial, was insufficient to justify anticipatory bail, and that the circumstances disclosed prima facie material requiring further investigation into the applicant’s alleged involvement.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the High Court rejected the first anticipatory-bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.