This document is severely damaged by character-level corruption: the caption, parties, case number, bench, dates and the issuing court's own operative text (paras 1-13, 15-27, 39-42, 72-85) are largely illegible, so the issuing court and its disposition cannot be verified from the text; digital attestation stamps read 'SUKHPREET KAUR ... 2026.05.19 14:05 ... chandigarh' (an attesting officer, not a judge). Everything legible consists of italicised, quotation-marked EXTRACTS from other NDPS bail decisions: (i) an appellate order setting aside pre-arrest bail that a High Court had granted only because no recovery was effected and implication rested solely on main accused Dinesh Kumar's disclosure statement, the High Court having relied on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1; the appellate court held anticipatory bail 'not really warranted' in such a case, allowed the appeals and set the impugned orders aside (extract paras 4-10); (ii) an order enlarging on anticipatory bail a petitioner facing Sections 15 and 29 NDPS charges after 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from a co-accused who alone named him, the petitioner having been granted bail in a parallel NDPS case; (iii) dismissal of NCB's special-leave petitions seeking cancellation of bail (Diary No. 22702/2020; SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1454/2021, 1465/2021, a number beginning 1773-74/2021, and 2080/2021; orders dated 16th September 2019, 14th January 2020, 16th January 2020, 19th December 2019 and 20th January 2020 upheld), because apart from Section 67 NDPS statements of the respondents/co-accused no substantial material prima facie connected them with drug trafficking, Section 67 confessional statements being inadmissible at trial per an authority cited there whose name/citation is corrupted and unidentifiable, call-detail and tampering aspects being left to trial; and (iv) a Division Bench release-on-bail order for Vikrant Singh, Subash Chander and Davinder Singh (custody since 06.11.2020, 05.12.2020 and 23.04.2021; challan filed with 32 witnesses, one examined; no recovery from them; call details lacking dates and transcripts), following 'Narcotics Control Bureau's case' and the Gujarat High Court in 'Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah's case' (mere call-detail contact without recorded conversations is not corroborative material). Because the issuing court's own reasoning and conclusion are illegible, NO holding is attributed to it; the reproduced decisions are logged only as 'referred' citations.
