Specific allegations in a co-accused’s memorandum justified denying bail for a commercial-quantity NDPS offence.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The applicant had been in custody since 16 February 2026.

During vehicle checking, police allegedly intercepted a Maruti Ciaz driven by co-accused Lakeshwar Yadav and recovered 30 kilograms of ganja from its trunk.

In his memorandum statement, Lakeshwar allegedly stated that he and the applicant were transporting the contraband at the instance of co-accused Praveen Malviya, the vehicle’s owner, and that the applicant had alighted near the border to conduct reconnaissance.

The applicant contended that no contraband was recovered from him, that he was not apprehended with the vehicle, and that the prosecution documents contained discrepancies regarding the timing of the vehicle’s arrival and the recovery.

The State opposed bail, relying on the commercial quantity recovered and the applicant’s alleged role in transporting it.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite no contraband having been recovered directly from him.

Whether the alleged disclosure by the co-accused, the applicant’s attributed role in reconnaissance and transportation, and the recovery of 30 kilograms of ganja justified denial of bail.

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

The Court applied Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning possession, transportation, or other dealings in cannabis.

The Court treated the alleged recovery of 30 kilograms of ganja as being above the prescribed commercial quantity and considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the quantity recovered, the specific role attributed to the applicant, and the material collected during investigation as relevant factors in exercising bail discretion.

No judicial precedent was cited or separately discussed in the order.

The Court acknowledged that no contraband had been seized directly from the applicant and that he was not apprehended in the vehicle at the time of recovery.

However, it found that the co-accused’s memorandum statement specifically implicated the applicant in transporting the contraband and attributed to him the role of conducting reconnaissance near the border.

Given the alleged recovery of 30 kilograms of ganja—treated as commercial quantity—and the seriousness of the offence, the Court held that the applicant’s role could not, at the bail stage, be completely disregarded.

The applicant’s challenges regarding the improbability of the prosecution version and discrepancies in the recovery documents did not persuade the Court to grant bail.

The rejection was based on the commercial quantity allegedly recovered, the gravity of the offence, the specific allegations arising from the co-accused’s memorandum statement, and the investigation material.

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