Bail in narcotics conspiracy cases depends on prima facie material showing knowing participation and actual flight risk.

Bail was granted in a prosecution for alleged conspiracy and abetment to export narcotic drugs because the material did not prima facie establish the petitioner's knowing participation. The court noted that he was unaware of the concealed drugs when the crate was handed over, opened it only for inventory, and his conduct was inconsistent with a pre-existing conspiracy. His earlier intimation to the Department about attempted smuggling also weakened any inference of abetment, and his local roots reduced flight risk and the likelihood of reoffending.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution alleging conspiracy and abetment to export narcotic drugs, having regard to the material recorded and the restrictions under the narcotics law.

Analysis: There was no material to show that the petitioner knew of the concealed drugs when the crate was handed over to him. The crate was opened by him for inventory, and the suspected concealment was discovered only thereafter. His conduct in opening the crate in the presence of his servants was inconsistent with a pre-existing conspiracy. The record also showed that he had earlier informed the Department about attempted smuggling, and there was no basis to infer that the omission to inform the authorities immediately established conspiracy or abetment. The circumstances were compatible with innocence, and he had roots in Bombay with little likelihood of absconding or repeating the offence.

Conclusion: Bail was granted, as no prima facie case of conspiracy or abetment was made out against the petitioner for the purpose of refusing bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be granted where the available material does not prima facie establish conspiracy or abetment and the surrounding circumstances are compatible with innocence and absence of flight risk.

---