Regular bail in NDPS cases may be granted where no recovery is made and the accused is implicated only through disclosure evidence.

Regular bail may be granted in an NDPS prosecution where the accused is not linked to any recovery, the nomination is based mainly on a disclosure statement of the main accused, and similarly placed co-accused have already been released on bail. The High Court noted that the allegations were confined to hawala-related transactions, no contraband or other recovery was effected from the petitioner, the challan had been filed, and the petitioner had complied with interim bail conditions. On these facts, the case was treated as better suited for regular bail and bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where no recovery was made from him and his nomination rested on a disclosure statement.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioner were limited to hawala-related transactions and his nomination was founded on the disclosure statement of the main accused. No recovery was effected from the petitioner and the challan had already been presented, though charges were not framed. The Court noted that co-accused facing similar allegations had already obtained bail and that the petitioner had complied with the concession of interim bail. In these circumstances, the case was considered to be on a better footing for bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bail application, where the accused is not connected to any recovery, the case rests principally on a disclosure statement, and similarly placed co-accused have obtained bail, regular bail may be granted.

---