ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Salim M. Saiyed appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. 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. 11191011250424 of 2025 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 21(B), 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. Allegation being that the accused had transacted in contraband – Mephedrone weighing 96.77 Grams, i.e. commercial quantity.

ii. The allegation against the present applicant being that he was indulged in selling of the contraband.

iii. While it would appear that the present applicant has antecedent of being involved in similar offences i.e. one offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act, yet, this Court has considered the fact that the applicant was not found in conscious possession of the contraband.

iv. This Court has also considered the fact that the applicant is neither stated to be the seller of the contraband nor the proposed receiver.

v. As noticed hereinabove, the only allegation being that the applicant was indulging in selling of the contraband, i.e. the present applicant is not stated to be connected with the principal offence in any manner whatsoever, except for an allegation that he was purchasing the contraband from the accused, who was found in conscious possession and was in contact with the other accused.

vi. Considering the lack of material against the present applicant, more particularly there being no specific allegation against the present applicant that he was involved in the offence in any manner whatsoever, to this Court it would appear that the requirement under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, going in favour of the present applicant, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191011250424 of 2025 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City, on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfactio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document