Bail under NDPS strict conditions despite parcel seizure, where uncorroborated Section 67 disclosure failed to prove conscious possession.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act required the Court to assess whether the petitioner, intercepted while collecting a courier parcel said to contain LSD blots, could be linked to conscious possession on a prima facie basis. Although the quantity exceeded the relevant threshold, the record did not show that the parcel was addressed to the petitioner, no contraband was recovered from his person or premises, and there was no conclusive forensic, financial, or digital evidence connecting him to the alleged trafficking network. The Section 67 disclosure, without independent corroboration, was treated as insufficient at this stage to establish conscious possession, and the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) were found satisfied. Bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, apprehended while collecting a courier parcel containing LSD blots, was entitled to bail under the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in light of the allegations of conscious possession, the Section 67 statement, and the absence of corroborative material.

Analysis: The parcel attributed to the petitioner contained 100 LSD blots weighing about 3.5 grams, which exceeded the prescribed threshold for LSD and attracted the statutory restrictions on bail. The material on record, however, showed that the petitioner was not the consignee, the parcel was not addressed to his residence, and no contraband was recovered from his person or premises. The Court noted ambiguity regarding the phone number said to have been used to trace the parcel and found no conclusive forensic material linking the petitioner to the calls. It further observed that there were no incriminating call records, financial transactions, or digital communications connecting the petitioner with the alleged trafficking network. The Section 67 disclosure, standing alone and without independent corroboration, was held insufficient at this stage to displace the petitioner's version or establish conscious possession. On a prima facie assessment, the Court held that the twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b) stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail.

---