Regular bail is restricted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when commercial quantities are involved and prima facie evidence, such as disclosure statements and call detail records, establishes a nexus between the accused and the contraband.

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present is the first petition under Section 483 BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025, registered under Sections 22-C and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, arising out of the allegations levelled against the petitioner therein.

2. On 05.11.2025, information was received at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, alleging that one convict Rameshwar @ Baira, who had been released on parole for 28 days, returned to the jail on 04.11.2025 and was suspected to have brought narcotic substances concealed inside his body. Acting upon the said information, the jail authorities and police officials conducted a medical examination of the said convict, during which he was found to be under the influence of drugs and a urine test confirmed consumption of various narcotic substances. Thereafter, he was referred for CT scan, which revealed the presence of a foreign object in his stomach, and during medical treatment, an orange-coloured packet containing narcotic tablets was recovered from his stomach. Consequently, on the basis of the said complaint and recovery, FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, and investigation was set into motion to ascertain the nature, quantity and source of the recovered contraband and the involvement of other persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which in the eyes of law is a weak piece of evidence and is not admissible as substantive evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. No recovery whatsoever has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and there is no material on record to connect him with the alleged contraband. The entire prosecution case, as against the petitioner, rests only on conjectures and surmises without any direct or circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that the rigorous of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case, as there is neither any recovery from the petitioner nor any other incriminating material to establish his involvement. The petitioner is in custody, investigation qua him is complete, nothing remains to be recovered from him, and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, more so when he undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the concession of regular bail.

4. On the other hand, the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that recovery of commercial quantity of contraband has been effected from the main accused and during the course of investigation, the said accused suffered a disclosure statement specifically naming the present petitioner as the supplier of the intoxicant substance. It is further argued that the investigation has revealed call detail records between the petitioner and the co-accused, which clearly establish their nexus and continuous contact at the relevant time. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the challan has not yet been presented, t