Absence of criminal antecedents justifies bail for intermediate quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act.

On January 18, 2026, the Ratanpur police acted on secret information regarding the transportation of narcotics

During a raid, 14.336 kilograms of Ganja (valued at ₹1,40,000) was recovered from the possession of co-accused Kushal Nirmalkar

The applicant was arrested at the scene, and a motorcycle allegedly used in the commission of the offense was seized from his possession

The applicant was charged under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

Following the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant, who had been in judicial custody since the date of the incident, moved for regular bail

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the quantity of contraband seized and his lack of criminal antecedents

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for the adjudication of the regular bail application

The substantive offenses were governed by Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985

Section 42 of the NDPS Act concerning search and seizure procedures

Procedural conditions for bail were regulated by Sections 209 (contempt of lawful authority), 269 (non-attendance), and 351 (recording of statements) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS

The court evaluated the application by balancing the gravity of the offense against the personal circumstances of the applicant.

It observed that the quantity of Ganja seized (14.336 kg) was less than the "commercial quantity" defined under the NDPS Act, which significantly lowers the threshold for granting bail as the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply

The court noted that the contraband was physically recovered from a co-accused, while only the vehicle was recovered from the applicant

the court emphasized that the applicant has no prior criminal record, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and he has been in custody since January 18, 2026

Considering that the trial would likely be prolonged, the court concluded that continued incarceration was unnecessary

The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail because the seized contraband was below commercial quantity and he had no criminal antecedents

The release was made subject to several conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a mandate to appear personally at specific trial stages (framing of charges and recording of statements), and a warning that misuse of liberty would result in proceedings under Sections 84 and 209 of the BNS/BNSS