01Facts
The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 70/2026, registered at Police Station Singhora, Mahasamund, for an alleged offence under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.
¶ 1–2Police intercepted a car and allegedly recovered 9 kg of ganja from the applicants’ joint possession.
¶ 1–2The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that the quantity was below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet had been filed, they had been in custody since 29 June 2026, and the trial would take time.
¶ 3–4Two applicants had no criminal antecedents; the third had seven prior cases, six of which had been disposed of, none being of a similar nature.
¶ 3–402Issues
i.1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in the prosecution under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.
¶ 1, 5–6ii.2. Whether the quantity of ganja allegedly recovered, the applicants’ antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the expected delay in trial justified their release on bail.
¶ 3–603Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the basis for the application for regular bail.
¶ 1The prosecution was under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.
¶ 1In deciding bail, the Court considered the alleged quantity and possession, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of judicial custody, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.
¶ 3–6The order does not cite any precedent or set out a further legal test.
¶ 1–7Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the 9 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from the applicants’ joint possession and that the quantity was below commercial quantity.
¶ 6It also considered that two applicants had no criminal antecedents and that the third applicant’s prior cases were not of a similar nature, with six already disposed of.
¶ 6As the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicants had remained in custody since 29 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that bail was warranted.
¶ 605Holding
The High Court allowed the bail application and directed that the applicants be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
¶ 7Bail was subject to conditions that they make themselves available for police interrogation when required, refrain from influencing persons acquainted with the case, and not act prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial.
¶ 7The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s determination on the merits.
¶ 7Original Court PDF
SHAHID KHANvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
