Regular bail may be denied in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities if the applicant is a habitual offender with previous antecedents and has misused prior bail, regardless of whether contraband was recovered during the specific arrest.

Order on Board

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 51/2025, registered at Police Station-Keskal District-Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 11.04.2025, the police seized a Fortuner car bearing registration No. RJ-50-UA-0788, from which 262.258 kg of ganja was recovered. However, the police could not trace the driver of the said vehicle. Subsequently, on 02.08.2025, the Cyber Cell of the police informed that a suspect vehicle bearing registration No. 24BH4706G, associated with mobile No. 9699374439, was proceeding towards Keskal. Acting upon the said information, the police intercepted the vehicle and apprehended the present applicant. During the search, a mobile phone bearing No. 9521395535 was seized from his possession, however, no contraband was recovered from the applicant or the said vehicle. Thereafter, a memorandum statement of the applicant was recorded by the police, on the basis of which he was implicated in the present case. Consequently, the applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 51/2025 registered at Police Station Keskal, District Kondagaon, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no previous criminal antecedents and has no role to play in the alleged offence and was merely travelling on NH-30, where, due to a minor altercation with the police, he has been falsely roped into the case. It is also contended that no contraband has been seized from the possession of the applicant and that he has been implicated after a delay of about four months from the date of the alleged incident. He further submits that although the charge-sheet has been filed, the prosecution has not attributed any specific role to the applicant except on the basis of a memorandum statement, which has no evidentiary value in law. It is also argued that the alleged vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-50-UA-0788 does not belong to the applicant, nor is he its owner or hirer. Moreover, as per the prosecution itself, the documents of the said vehicle were provided by an absconding accused who has not yet been arrested. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 20.08.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act from the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, as such, the present applicant is a habitual offender and further the quantity of contraband article which has been recovered the vehicle in question, is much above the commercial quantity, as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of contraband article which was recovered from the vehicle in question i.e. 262.258 Kgs of Ganja and so far as the criminal antecedent of th