Uncorroborated memorandum statement of co-accused without contraband recovery is insufficient to justify denial of bail.

The applicant, Jaspreet Kaur, sought regular bail following her arrest on 21.08.2025 in connection with Crime No. 183/2025.

The prosecution alleged that 28.16 grams of heroin (commercial quantity) was recovered from the applicant’s husband, co-accused Manmohan @ Jaggu.

The applicant was implicated based on a memorandum statement given by her husband, which claimed that a portion of the sale proceeds from the contraband was transferred to her bank account.

The applicant argued that she was falsely implicated solely due to her matrimonial relationship, highlighting that her marriage was solemnized on the same day as the arrest (21.08.2025), no contraband was recovered from her, and no specific transaction amounts were disclosed by the police.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when the primary evidence against her is a memorandum statement of a co-accused without independent corroboration.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

Memorandum statements provided under the investigation of offences punishable under Sections 21(B), 21(C), 29, and 27(A) of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS.

The principle that a matrimonial relationship alone is insufficient to infer criminal conspiracy or involvement in the absence of independent corroborative material or physical recovery of contraband.

The Court observed that the applicant had been detained since 21.08.2025 and possessed no criminal antecedents.

The Court noted that the prosecution’s case against the applicant rested entirely on the husband’s memorandum statement, which lacked independent corroboration.

The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to disclose any specific monetary amounts allegedly transferred to her account, making the link between the applicant and the illegal trade tenuous.

The Court highlighted that the absence of any recovery from the applicant’s possession distinguished her case from that of her husband.

The Court reasoned that a matrimonial bond cannot serve as the sole basis for inferring involvement in an NDPS offence, especially when the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is expected to be lengthy.

The Court held that the applicant’s case was distinguishable from the co-accused husband's due to the lack of recovery and the absence of corroborative evidence.

The release was conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including regular attendance at trial and a prohibition against seeking adjournments during witness testimony.