Bail may be denied in NDPS cases where a substantial quantity of contraband, significantly exceeding the commercial limit, is recovered from the conscious possession of the accused, distinguishing their role from co-accused from whom no recovery was made.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.J.K. Koshti appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191011230256 of 2023 registered with DCB Police Station, District : Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act .

3. Having heard the learned advocate Mr.J.K. Koshti appearing for the applicant and learned APP Mr.J.K. Shah appearing for the respondent-State and having perused the documentary evidence including the charge-sheet, and the afÏdavit of the Investigating OfÏcer, which is a summary of the charge sheet, this court is not inclined to consider the present application for the following reasons:

(i) The fact of the offence being very serious, inasmuch as contraband – Mephedrone weighing 594 gram 800 milligrams, valued at Rs.59,48,000/-, had been caught from the conscious possession of the present applicant.

(ii) Learned advocate submitting that the present applicant was only a carrier, and whereas the accused who were actively involved having been considered by the learned Coordinate Benches of this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and whereas, it would appear in this regard that the investigation has prima facie revealed that the applicant was not a carrier, whereas the applicant and his brother, co-accused Anwar Hussain, were dealing in the contraband in question on a wholesale basis, and whereas the applicant had been apprehended while he was coming back after purchasing the contraband in question from co-accused Manubhai Choudhury.

(iii) It would appear that co-accused have been released by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as learned Coordinate benches, more particularly, the role attributed to the present applicant is different from the other accused who have been considered.

(iv) It would be relevant, at this stage, to refer to observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of co-accused Saqib @ Saqib Chana , vide order dated 18-07-2025 in SLP No. 6458 of 2025, whereby co-accused Saqib @ Saqib Chana was released on bail, and whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court had, inter alia, considered the fact that the recovery of the contraband Mephedrone had not been from the applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but rather from the possession of another co-accused person.

(v) It would also appear that having considered the said arguments and having considered the fact of the period of incarceration, the Hon'ble Apex Court had been pleased to release the said applicant on regular bail.

(vi) As against the same, as noticed hereinabove, the present applicant was the accused, from whom the contraband had been recovered by the investigating ofÏcer.

(vii) It would also appear that even in case of accused Manubhai Chaudhary from whom the present applicant had allegedly purchased the contraband, the learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.09.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No.18599 of 2025, had inter alia noticed that while the case of prosecution was that the applicant before the learned Co-ordinate Bench had supplied the contraband substance, yet the same had been recovered from a co-accused.

(viii) It is also pointed out by learned APP, Mr. J. K. Shah, that the trial has commenced and whereas, around 5 witnesses have been examined by the learned Trial Court.

4. Considering such a position, it would appear to this Court that t