Bail can be granted in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities if the implication is primarily based on co-accused statements and there is no direct evidence of a nexus or risk of absconding, as detailed evidence appreciation is not required at the bail stage.

O R D E R

1. This third application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.21/2024 registered at Police Station Pindwara, District Sirohi, for offences under Sections 8 /15 of the NDPS Act and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act ans Sections 353, 307 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution, on 12.01.2024 during routine nakabandi, the police team signaled one white colored creta car No. RJ-14-AC-1141 to stop. On seeing the police party, the driver of the said vehicle escalated the speed of the vehicle with an intention of fleeing away. However, the said car got into an accident near Shivera bus stand on which the driver of the said car fired a gunshot on police party and escaped on foot towards fields and one person namely Kirta Ram was detained by the police team. Upon searching the offending vehicle, the police team recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 268 kilograms from 14 plastic bags.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, contraband greater than commercial quantity has not been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. It is contended that there is no direct or cogent evidence available on record which implicate complicity of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been arrested in the present case solely on the basis of statements of the co-accused person.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that apart from disclosure statements of the petitioner, there is no evidence available on record which indicate that gun allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner was the same gun that had been fired at the police party during the chase. It was further submitted that the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence which creates a link/connection between the petitioner and co-accused Kirta Ram, who was arrested on the spot.

6. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.07.2024; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; investigation in the matter has already been concluded and the trial of the case is likely to consume a long time, therefore the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. He submitted that contraband greater than commercial quantity has been recovered in the present case, therefore the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly attracted in the present case. He thus prayed that looking to the seriousness of the offences allegedly committed by the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the present case involves recovery of contraband of commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act . However, it is equally settled that at the stage of deciding a bail application, a detailed appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible.

8. In the present case, the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and his implication appears to be prim