Bail under NDPS law granted where lab report was negative and co-accused statement lacked independent corroboration.

Bail under the NDPS Act was held maintainable where the chemical analysis of the seized samples was negative for Ketamine, so the material could not at that stage be treated as the alleged contraband. The further allegation that the accused had trained a co-accused to manufacture the drug rested only on the co-accused's voluntary statement and lacked independent corroboration. On that material, the statutory embargo under Section 37 did not prevent grant of bail, and the petitioner was entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, when the laboratory report was negative for the alleged contraband and the other allegation rested on a co-accused's statement.

Analysis: The bail application was considered on the basis of the material in the charge-sheet and the laboratory report. The seized samples had been sent for chemical analysis and the report showed negative results for the presence of Ketamine, so the seized material could not, at that stage, be described as Ketamine. The other allegation that the petitioner trained a co-accused in manufacturing the drug was based only on the voluntary statement of the co-accused and was not supported by any independent corroborative material. In these circumstances, the Court found that the statutory embargo under Section 37 did not defeat bail on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail.

---