Introduction
Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are among the most stringently treated in Indian bail jurisprudence, given the special provisions governing bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, where the alleged offence involves substances that do not attract the rigours of Section 37 — such as certain pharmaceutical preparations including cough syrups — and where the accused’s implication rests solely on the memorandum of a co-accused without any direct evidence, the ordinary principles of bail apply with full force. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur examined precisely this situation in MCRC No. 52645 of 2025, where the applicant was alleged to have transported cough syrup contraband through his vehicle — an allegation unsupported by any direct evidence.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Dilshad Khan @ Prince, filed his first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 428/2025 registered at Police Station Bichchiya, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh.
The applicant had been in judicial custody since 28 September 2025.
The offences alleged were under:
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Sections 8, 21, 22, NDPS Act | Prohibition, punishment for contraband drugs and psychotropic substances |
| Section 5/13, Drug Control Act | Offences relating to drug control |
Key Facts
The prosecution’s case rested on the following factual matrix:
- 600 bottles of Onrex cough syrup — a pharmaceutical preparation — were recovered from the co-accused
- The allegation against the present applicant was that the contraband had been supplied by him through his vehicle bearing registration number MP-53-CA 4097
- Critically, the applicant was made accused solely on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused — there was no independent or direct evidence connecting the applicant to the transportation of the contraband
- No direct evidence was available — even prima facie — to establish that the applicant’s vehicle was actually used in the commission of the offence
- By the time of hearing, the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning the investigation was complete and the applicant’s custodial presence was no longer required for investigative purposes
Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant
Mr. Jaydeep Kourav, Advocate for the applicant, advanced the following arguments:
1. Implication Based Solely on Co-Accused’s Memorandum The applicant had been made an accused entirely on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused — a piece of evidence that is well-known to be of limited and secondary evidentiary value in criminal law. There was no independent material to corroborate this implication.
2. No Direct Evidence of Vehicle Use There was no direct evidence — not even prima facie — to establish that the applicant’s vehicle had been used for transporting the seized contraband. The mere registration of a vehicle in the applicant’s name, without more, was insufficient to connect him to the offence.
3. Charge-Sheet Already Filed The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed. The applicant was no longer required for any investigative purpose, making continued detention disproportionate.
4. Reputational Harm from Prolonged Custody It was urged that prolonged incarceration without adequate evidence would cause irreparable reputational damage to the applicant — a consideration that courts have recognized in appropriate cases.
State’s Opposition
The learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application but the order does not record any specific counter-argument beyond the general opposition.
The Court’s Decision
Hon’ble Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal, having regard specifically to the role of the applicant in the alleged offence, deemed it proper to release the applicant on bail and accordingly allowed the application.
Directions issued by the Court:
- The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court
- The applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on all dates fixed during the trial
- The applicant shall abide by all conditions enumerated under Section 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023
- The bail order shall remain effective until the end of the trial
- In case of bail jump or breach of any condition, the order shall become ineffective automatically
- A soft copy of the bail order shall be sent immediately to the applicant through the concerned Jail Superintendent — reflecting the Court’s concern for the prompt implementation of the order
Legal Significance of This Order
This order raises several important legal principles relevant to NDPS cases and bail jurisprudence more broadly:
① Memorandum of Co-Accused — Limited Evidentiary Value The applicant was made accused solely on the basis of the memorandum of a co-accused. Under Indian evidence law, a memorandum or disclosure statement made by a co-accused is not substantive evidence against another accused — it can at best be used for the limited purpose of leading to a discovery. Its use as the sole basis for implicating a person in a serious criminal case, without any corroborating material, is a well-recognized infirmity that courts consistently note at the bail stage.
② No Direct Evidence of Vehicle Use — A Critical Gap The prosecution’s case rested on the allegation that the applicant’s vehicle was used to transport the contraband. However, no direct evidence — not even a prima facie case — was placed before the Court to establish this connection. The mere fact that a vehicle is registered in an accused’s name does not, without more, prove that the accused used it for the alleged purpose or was even aware of the contraband being transported.
③ NDPS Cases Involving Pharmaceutical Preparations — Bail Principles The contraband in this case consisted of cough syrup bottles — a pharmaceutical preparation. Such cases are governed by Sections 8, 21, and 22 of the NDPS Act. Depending on the quantity involved, the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act may or may not apply. The Court’s grant of bail with a relatively modest bond of Rs. 15,000/- reflects its assessment that the ordinary bail principles — rather than the stringent Section 37 threshold — governed this case.
④ Completion of Investigation as a Ground for Bail The filing of the charge-sheet was specifically noted. Once investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed, the primary justification for custodial detention — facilitating investigation — no longer exists. Courts have consistently recognized this as a material factor favouring bail.
⑤ Soft Copy Directed to Jail Superintendent — Ensuring Prompt Implementation The Court’s specific direction to send a soft copy of the bail order immediately to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent is a practical and humane measure that ensures the bail order is implemented without unnecessary delay — a reflection of the Court’s concern for the timely restoration of personal liberty.
Relevant Legal Provisions
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 483, BNSS 2023 | Regular Bail by High Court |
| Section 480(3), BNSS 2023 | Conditions on Release on Bail |
| Section 8, NDPS Act | Prohibition of Certain Operations |
| Section 21, NDPS Act | Punishment for Contravention in Relation to Manufactured Drugs |
| Section 22, NDPS Act | Punishment for Contravention in Relation to Psychotropic Substances |
| Section 5/13, Drug Control Act | Drug Control Offences |
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in Dilshad Khan @ Prince vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC 52645/2025) is a practically valuable illustration of how courts approach bail in NDPS cases where the accused’s implication rests entirely on a co-accused’s memorandum without any direct evidence. The absence of any direct material connecting the applicant’s vehicle to the transportation of contraband, combined with the completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet, made a compelling case for bail that the Court accepted. For practitioners regularly appearing in NDPS and drug-related matters before the MP High Court, this order is a useful and directly applicable reference point.
