Absence of recovery and presence at seizure supported bail under the NDPS Act.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Police allegedly seized ganja from two persons travelling in a car; no contraband was seized from the applicant, who was not in the vehicle at the time.

A co-accused’s memorandum statement allegedly implicated the applicant in purchasing ganja for sale.

The applicant submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed, he had been in custody since 02.08.2026, and he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged commercial quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the State’s objection under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the circumstances—including no seizure from the applicant, his absence from the vehicle, the filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody and antecedents—justified release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was the procedural basis for the regular-bail application.

Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act were the offences alleged; the State contended that Section 37’s restrictions applied because the seized contraband was above commercial quantity.

The Court identified no precedent or separately stated legal test in its order.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations but noted that the contraband had been seized from co-accused persons, not from the applicant, and that he was not travelling in the vehicle when it was intercepted.

It also took into account that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 02.08.2026, and he had no criminal antecedents.

On those circumstances, and without commenting further on the merits, the Court found bail warranted.

The order does not separately explain how the Section 37 objection was resolved.

It directed that the applicant be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like sum, subject to the trial court’s satisfaction and conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial, and requiring attendance on every date fixed until disposal of the trial.