Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act | Bail Granted Despite Arrest Based Solely on Co-Accused Confession Without Contraband Seizure : Karnataka HC

In a significant ruling on bail jurisprudence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to an accused arrested solely on the basis of co-accused confessions, without any contraband seizure from his possession. The judgment underscores the limitations of confession-based arrests in NDPS cases and reinforces the principle that bail should not be denied mechanically, even in serious offences.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Azam Shareef, was arrested in Crime No. 12/2026 registered by Metagalli Police Station, Mysuru, for offences under Sections 22(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The arrest was based solely on confessions made by co-accused Pramod and Vikas, who were apprehended with contraband articles, including MDMA weighing 51 grams and Ganja weighing 2 kgs 230 grams. The petitioner was not found in possession of any contraband, nor did he have any criminal antecedents.

Key Facts

• 17.02.2026: FIR registered against accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Pramod and Vikas) based on credible information received by Shabbir Hussain, a police officer attached to Metagalli Police Station.
• 17.02.2026: Contraband articles (MDMA and Ganja) seized from the possession of accused Nos. 1 and 2.
• 20.02.2026: Petitioner arrested based on confessions made by accused Nos. 1 and 2 during investigation.
• 20.02.2026: Petitioner remanded to judicial custody. The remand application noted that police did not seek his custody, stating his custody was not required.
• 18.03.2026: Petitioner’s bail application rejected by the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
• No contraband was seized from the petitioner’s possession.
• No criminal antecedents were recorded against the petitioner.

Procedural History

• 17.02.2026: FIR registered against accused Nos. 1 and 2.
• 20.02.2026: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
• 18.03.2026: Bail application rejected by the Sessions Court.
• Present Petition: Criminal Petition No. 5360 of 2026 filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought enlargement on bail in Crime No. 12/2026 pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, for offences under Sections 22(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether an accused arrested solely on the basis of co-accused confessions, without any contraband seizure or criminal antecedents, is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the CrPC (now Section 483 of BNSS, 2023) in NDPS cases.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner was arrested without any contraband seizure from his possession, relying solely on confessions made by co-accused.
• The police did not seek his custody during remand, indicating the lack of direct evidence against him.
• The petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and his arrest was based on hearsay evidence.
• Denial of bail would amount to punishment without trial, violating principles of natural justice.

For the Respondent

• The confessions of co-accused provided sufficient grounds for arrest, as they implicated the petitioner in the purchase of contraband.
• The gravity of the offence under the NDPS Act warranted denial of bail, given the stringent provisions of the statute.
• The Sessions Court had already rejected the bail application, indicating the prima facie strength of the prosecution’s case.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the material on record and noted the following critical observations:

1. No Direct Evidence: The petitioner was arrested solely on the basis of confessions made by co-accused, without any contraband being seized from his possession. The Court emphasized that confession-based arrests must be scrutinized carefully, particularly in the absence of corroborative evidence.

2. Police Remand Application: The remand application filed by the police explicitly stated that the petitioner’s custody was not required. This admission weakened the prosecution’s case for continued detention, as it suggested a lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the contraband.

3. Lack of Criminal Antecedents: The petitioner had no prior criminal record, which the Court considered a mitigating factor in favor of granting bail.

4. Principle of Bail: The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in serious offences. It held that the mechanical denial of bail based on the gravity of the offence alone would be unjust, particularly when the accused’s involvement was not conclusively established.

"Undisputedly, there is no seizure of any contraband article from the possession of the petitioner in the present case. It is not in dispute that petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. Petitioner has been arrested in the present case only based on confession statement made by accused Nos.1 and 2. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that his prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively."

The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where bail was denied due to direct seizure of contraband or criminal antecedents, holding that such factors were absent here.

The Verdict

The petition was allowed. The Court directed the petitioner’s enlargement on bail in Crime No. 12/2026 subject to the following conditions:

• Execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.
• Regular appearance before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, unless exempted for valid reasons.
• No tampering with prosecution witnesses or threatening them directly or indirectly.
• No involvement in similar offences in the future.
• No leaving the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission until the case is disposed of.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Confession-Based Arrests Are Not Conclusive

• Courts must scrutinize confession-based arrests carefully, particularly when no contraband is seized from the accused.
• The absence of direct evidence (e.g., seizure) weakens the prosecution’s case for continued detention.
• Practitioners should argue that confessions alone, without corroboration, are insufficient to deny bail under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS).

Bail Should Not Be Denied Mechanically

• The gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail, especially when the accused’s involvement is not conclusively established.
• Lack of criminal antecedents and no direct seizure are strong factors in favor of bail.
• Courts must balance the right to liberty against the prosecution’s case strength, ensuring that bail denials are not punitive.

Police Remand Applications Matter

• The police’s statement in the remand application (e.g., that the accused’s custody is not required) can be a critical factor in bail hearings.
• Defence counsel should highlight such admissions to argue for bail, as they undermine the prosecution’s case for continued detention.