The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that mere employment as a vehicle driver in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of ganja does not automatically disqualify an accused from bail, if there is no prima facie evidence of conscious knowledge of the contraband. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail must be assessed on individual role and intent, not merely on the scale of the offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Santosh Kumar Lahare, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2025 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, for an offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case arose from the recovery of 86.250 kg of ganja from a Mahindra vehicle bearing registration CG 12 AF 3456, allegedly being transported from Kudhurtal to Khektara.
Key Facts
- On 15.02.2025, Inspector Akhilesh Kumar Vaishnav received intelligence about illegal transportation of ganja.
- A raid was conducted at the spot, where two individuals - Raju Sahu and Ramraj - were found seated in the vehicle.
- Upon search, three white plastic sacks containing 28 packets each, wrapped in brown tape, were recovered from the vehicle, totaling 86.250 kg of ganja valued at ₹8,50,000.
- The contraband was seized from the possession of Raju Sahu; Ramraj was also apprehended at the scene.
- The vehicle was registered in the name of Arun Kumar Khunte, who disclosed that Santosh Kumar Lahare was his driver.
- Santosh Kumar Lahare, in his memorandum statement, stated he was directed by Arun Kumar Khunte to hand over the vehicle to Raju Sahu on 15.02.2025, and had no knowledge of the contraband.
- He returned after handing over the vehicle and was not present during the seizure.
- Arun Kumar Khunte and Raju Sahu were arrested on 19.06.2025; Santosh Kumar Lahare was arrested on the same date.
- The charge-sheet was filed under Section 20(B) NDPS Act, and the trial is pending.
- Santosh Kumar Lahare has no prior criminal record.
Procedural History
- 15.02.2025: Recovery of 86.250 kg ganja from vehicle; Raju Sahu and Ramraj apprehended.
- 19.06.2025: Arrest of Santosh Kumar Lahare, Arun Kumar Khunte, and Raju Sahu.
- Date unspecified: Charge-sheet filed before the trial court.
- 01.04.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Parties' Positions
The applicant claims he was merely a driver acting on the instructions of the vehicle owner, with no knowledge of the contraband. He asserts that his role was limited to transportation of the vehicle, not the contraband, and that he returned after handing it over.
The State contends that as the driver of the vehicle from which commercial quantity of ganja was recovered, the applicant cannot be absolved of liability. It argues that the scale of the offence and the bar under the NDPS Act for commercial quantity make bail inappropriate.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks regular bail on the grounds that he has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet is filed, key prosecution witnesses have already been examined and failed to support the case, and the trial is likely to be protracted.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused, who is merely the driver of a vehicle from which a commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered and who claims no knowledge of the contraband, be granted bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the stringent bail restrictions under the NDPS Act?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the applicant’s role was strictly limited to driving the vehicle under the instructions of the owner, Arun Kumar Khunte. He had no involvement in the loading, planning, or possession of the ganja. His memorandum statement, recorded at the time of arrest, clearly stated he handed over the vehicle to Raju Sahu and left the scene. No incriminating material was found on his person. The prosecution has not established any prima facie link between the applicant and the contraband. Further, co-accused Ramraj and Arun Kumar Khunte’s bail applications were rejected, but their roles were more direct - Ramraj was present at the scene, and Khunte was the owner. The applicant’s position is distinct. He has no criminal history, and prolonged detention without trial would violate his right to liberty.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed bail, emphasizing that 86.250 kg of ganja far exceeds the commercial quantity threshold under Section 20(B) NDPS Act. The law imposes a strict bar on bail for such offences. As the driver of the vehicle, the applicant was an integral part of the transportation chain. His claim of ignorance is a matter for trial and cannot be accepted at the bail stage. The State also pointed out that bail had been denied to other co-accused, and granting it to the applicant would create inconsistency and undermine the deterrent intent of the NDPS Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the applicant’s involvement, distinguishing his role from that of the other accused. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offence and the statutory bar under the NDPS Act, the Court emphasized that bail is not automatically denied merely because a commercial quantity is involved. The critical inquiry is whether there is prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the offence with conscious knowledge.
"It also appears from the record that the applicant is not the owner of the said vehicle and is merely a driver employed by co-accused Arun Kumar Khunte. As per the memorandum statement of the applicant, he had handed over the said vehicle to co-accused Raju Sahu only on the instructions of the vehicle owner Arun Kumar Khunte and there is no material available on record at this stage to prima facie establish that the applicant had conscious knowledge about the presence of contraband in the said vehicle."
The Court noted that the contraband was recovered from Raju Sahu’s possession, and the applicant was not present during the raid. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence linking the applicant to the planning, loading, or intent to traffic the ganja. The fact that other co-accused were denied bail does not preclude a separate assessment of the applicant’s distinct circumstances. The Court further considered the applicant’s clean record, the length of custody since 19.06.2025, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that some prosecution witnesses had already testified without corroborating the case against him.
The Court held that continued detention would serve no useful purpose and that the applicant’s liberty should not be denied solely on the basis of the vehicle’s association with the contraband, absent evidence of his conscious participation.
The Verdict
The applicant, Santosh Kumar Lahare, succeeded in his bail application. The Court granted him regular bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in a sum to be determined by the trial court. The applicant must comply with four conditions: (i) file an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) appear before the trial court on all dates, personally or through counsel; (iii) face prosecution under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita if a proclamation under Section 84 is issued and he fails to appear; and (iv) personally appear for the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. Failure to comply with any condition may be treated as abuse of bail and result in cancellation. The trial court was directed to receive a certified copy of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Role Matters More Than Vehicle Association
- Practitioners must argue that mere presence as a driver or employee does not equate to criminal intent under the NDPS Act.
- The burden remains on the prosecution to establish conscious knowledge or active participation - not just association with the vehicle.
- Bail applications should highlight the accused’s limited role, absence from the scene of seizure, and lack of control over the contraband.
Prima Facie Evidence Must Be Specific
- Courts will not presume guilt based on the quantity of contraband alone.
- If the accused was not present during recovery and has no prior connection to the contraband, the absence of direct evidence weakens the State’s case at the bail stage.
- Memorandum statements recorded at arrest, if consistent and uncontradicted, may support claims of ignorance.
Bail Denial to Co-Accused Does Not Bind Others
- Each accused’s circumstances must be evaluated independently, even if co-accused were denied bail.
- A driver’s role is legally distinct from that of an owner, transporter, or possessor.
- Courts must avoid blanket denials based on the offences of others.
Procedural Compliance Is Key
- Bail conditions under BNSS are enforceable and must be strictly adhered to.
- Failure to appear on critical dates (framing of charge, Section 351 statement) may trigger cancellation under Section 209 BNSS.
- Advocates must advise clients on the non-negotiable nature of these conditions.
