NDPS bail and reasonable grounds: retracted disclosures and weak corroboration were insufficient to deny release.

Bail was granted under the NDPS Act because the material on record did not furnish reasonable grounds to believe the accused would be convicted. The prosecution case depended mainly on retracted disclosure statements, while the supporting bank records and call detail records did not conclusively link him to the alleged supply chain or payment for contraband. The asserted procurement sources were not effectively established, one named person had been discharged, another was not arraigned as an accused, and the claimed drug addiction lacked medical support. On the available material, the Court found the possibility of acquittal could not be negatived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the basis that the material on record did not furnish reasonable grounds to believe that he would be convicted of the alleged offences under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioner rested substantially on disclosure statements recorded under the NDPS Act, which had been retracted. The supporting material relied upon by the prosecution, including bank deposits and call detail records, did not conclusively connect the petitioner with the alleged supply chain or establish payment for the contraband. The alleged sources of procurement were not effectively established, one accused named in the disclosure statement had been discharged, another was not arrayed as an accused, and the claimed drug addiction of the petitioner was not supported by medical evidence. On the material then available, the Court found the prosecution case insufficient to negate the possibility of acquittal.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner.

---