Uncorroborated co-accused disclosure statements are insufficient to deny bail under Section 37 NDPS Act.

On June 2, 2025, police intercepted two individuals, Kalusingh and Anil Vishnoi, transporting 52.400 kg of Poppy Straw on a motorcycle

During interrogation, Kalusingh claimed he purchased the contraband from one Dashrath, who was subsequently arrested on September 23, 2025.

Dashrath then named the applicant, Shravan Singh, as the original supplier.

The applicant was arrested on February 1, 2026, for offenses under Sections 8, 15, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The investigation was completed, and a final report was submitted.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that he was implicated solely based on a co-accused's statement without any corroborating evidence.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the restrictions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, given that his implication rests solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused

2. Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence if released

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the High Court’s power to grant bail

Sections 8, 15, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act

Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics

Section 346 of the BNSS (formerly Section 309 CrPC) regarding the timely examination of witnesses

The court observed that the applicant was not found in "active and conscious possession" of any narcotic contraband; rather, his involvement was inferred from a chain of statements starting from a co-accused in police custody.

The court noted a significant lack of corroborative evidence, such as Call Detail Records (CDR) or a money trail, to establish a link between the applicant and the seized poppy straw.

Consequently, the court held that the rigorous bar of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act would not apply in this specific factual matrix where complicity is yet to be determined by trial evidence.

Furthermore, the court found no compelling reason for continued incarceration as the investigation was complete, the applicant had no history of previous convictions for major offenses, and his socio-economic status mitigated the risk of him fleeing or tampering with witnesses.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount.

The release is subject to conditions including regular attendance at hearings, a prohibition against committing similar offenses, and a mandate not to induce or threaten witnesses.

The court clarified that the trial court may cancel bail if any conditions are breached.