The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that mere implication through a co-accused’s statement, without recovery of contraband from the accused or corroborative evidence, does not justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act - even where a commercial quantity is alleged. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail must be granted unless the prosecution demonstrates a compelling reason to deny liberty, particularly where the accused has no criminal antecedents and the trial is likely to be prolonged.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Akhil Kumar Jaiswal, a 18-year-old resident of Village Beltikari, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 09/2026 registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa. He is accused under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for alleged involvement in the transportation and possession of a commercial quantity of ganja.
Key Facts
- On 05.01.2026, the applicant was arrested following an investigation into the seizure of 15.700 kg of ganja from two co-accused, Chandrashekhar Sahu and Tushar Sahu.
- The ganja was recovered from an ECO car bearing registration number CG-06/HE-2340, which was intercepted by police based on secret intelligence.
- A memorandum statement recorded from Chandrashekhar Sahu alleged that he purchased the ganja from Vimal Kumar of Padampur, Odisha, and was transporting it to the applicant in Shivrinarayan for delivery.
- No contraband was recovered from the applicant’s person, residence, or vehicle.
- No independent evidence - such as call records, financial transactions, or eyewitnesses - links the applicant to the contraband.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record.
- He has been in judicial custody since 05.01.2026.
Procedural History
- 05.01.2026: Arrest of applicant without recovery of contraband from him.
- 15.02.2026: Charge-sheet filed before the Special Court under NDPS Act.
- 24.03.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks regular bail on the grounds that: (i) no contraband was recovered from him; (ii) the prosecution’s case rests solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused; (iii) he has no criminal antecedents; and (iv) the trial is likely to be protracted.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, who has not been found in exclusive possession of a commercial quantity of contraband and whose involvement is based solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused, is entitled to regular bail despite the gravity of the alleged offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that: (i) the prosecution failed to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure procedures; (ii) the applicant was not in possession of the ganja, and no incriminating material was recovered from him; (iii) the sole basis of accusation is the uncorroborated memorandum statement of a co-accused, which is inherently unreliable; (iv) the applicant has no criminal history; and (v) the trial is likely to extend for years, making continued incarceration unjust. He relied on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to emphasize that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed bail, contending that: (i) the charge-sheet has been filed, indicating prima facie evidence; (ii) the quantity of ganja (15.700 kg) constitutes a commercial quantity under Section 29 of the NDPS Act; (iii) the memorandum statement of the co-accused directly implicates the applicant; and (iv) the seriousness of the offence, involving large-scale drug trafficking, warrants denial of bail under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the evidence against the applicant and found it insufficient to justify denial of bail. While acknowledging that the quantity of ganja seized (15.700 kg) exceeds the threshold for commercial quantity under Section 29, the Court emphasized that the applicant was not in possession of the contraband. The prosecution’s case rests entirely on the uncorroborated statement of Chandrashekhar Sahu, with no independent verification or physical evidence linking the applicant to the transaction.
"The contraband article i.e. 15.700/- Kg Ganja was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant, the same was recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons, namely Chandrashekhar Sahu and Tushar Sahu."
The Court further noted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 05.01.2026, with no indication that the trial will conclude in the near future. The Court distinguished this case from those where the accused is found in actual possession of contraband or where multiple corroborative links exist. It held that the mere allegation of involvement through a co-accused’s statement, without corroboration or recovery from the accused, does not meet the threshold for denying bail under the NDPS Act.
The Court also observed that while Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not strictly followed, this alone was not determinative. The absence of direct evidence against the applicant, combined with his clean record and prolonged detention, tipped the balance in his favor.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail to Akhil Kumar Jaiswal on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like sum. The applicant must comply with the following conditions: (i) file an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) appear personally or through counsel on all court dates; (iii) appear in person for the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS; and (iv) face consequences under Sections 269 and 209 of BNSS for non-appearance without cause. The trial court was directed to receive a certified copy of this order forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on Quantity Allegation
- Practitioners must argue that under the NDPS Act, the mere allegation of commercial quantity is insufficient to deny bail if the accused was not in possession of the contraband.
- Courts must distinguish between actual possession and speculative involvement based on co-accused statements.
Corroboration Is Essential for Serious Offences
- In NDPS cases, uncorroborated statements of co-accused cannot form the sole basis for denying bail.
- Absence of recovery from the accused, absence of call records, financial trails, or eyewitnesses must be highlighted to support bail applications.
Procedural Compliance and Custody Duration Matter
- Prolonged custody without trial progress strengthens the case for bail.
- Courts are increasingly willing to grant bail where the accused has no prior record and the prosecution’s evidence is circumstantial.
Conditions on Bail Are Now Standard
- Courts are imposing specific, enforceable conditions on bail in NDPS cases, including mandatory personal appearance for key stages of trial.
- Failure to comply may trigger proceedings under BNSS Sections 269 and 209, making bail a conditional liberty, not an absolute right.
The Burden of Proof Is Not Shifted to the Accused
- The prosecution must establish a prima facie case of direct involvement.
- The Court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence remains intact until proven otherwise, even in drug-related cases.
