### Statements of Co-accused Without Corroborative Evidence Inadequate to Restrict Bail Under NDPS Act

The applicant, Balusingh, sought his first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.

On May 3, 2024, police intercepted a vehicle and seized 66.2 kg of Ganja from a driver named Rahul.

Rahul and subsequent co-accused (Pirusingh and Mukesh) gave statements in custody alleging that the applicant had arranged the contraband in Visakhapatnam.

The applicant was arrested on November 2, 2025.

The prosecution opposes bail citing gravity and one criminal antecedent.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering his implication is primarily based on the statements of co-accused and no direct seizure was made from him.

2. Whether the bar against bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is attracted in the absence of a money trail or Call Detail Record (CDR) linking the applicant to the offence.

The court primarily applied Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.

It relied on the precedents of *Deepak Bhai vs. State of Gujarat* (2020) and *Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu* (2021) to establish that self-incriminating statements or information provided by co-accused in police custody are generally inadmissible as substantive evidence.

Procedurally, the application was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The court observed that no narcotic contraband was seized from the "active, direct, immediate or conscious possession" of the applicant.

The prosecution’s case against the applicant relied almost exclusively on the custodial statements of co-accused Rahul, Pirusingh, and Mukesh, which are legally vulnerable under the *Tofan Singh* principle.

Furthermore, the court noted a lack of corroborative evidence, such as a money trail or Call Detail Reports (CDR), to substantiate the applicant's alleged complicity.

Finding that co-accused Mukesh and Pirusingh had already been granted bail, the court concluded that the stringent "interdict" of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act did not operate against the applicant as the prosecution's claims were not manifest at this stage.

It held that since the veracity of the applicant's complicity remains a matter for trial and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or recidivism, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including regular court attendance and non-involvement in similar offences.