Absence of satisfactory explanation for joint possession of commercial quantity of contraband precludes grant of bail under NDPS Act.

On August 28, 2025, police intercepted a Maruti Dzire car at Temri Naka based on secret information regarding the transport of contraband from Odisha.

Upon searching the vehicle's dickey, 30 kilograms of ganja (cannabis) were recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and two others.

The applicant, a driver by profession, was arrested and charged under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.

He filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending he had no knowledge of the contraband and was merely acting on the vehicle owner's instructions.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the quantity of contraband seized and the nature of the allegations under the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, or use of cannabis.

The court also considered the statutory Schedule of the NDPS Act, which defines "commercial quantity" for various substances.

Furthermore, the court looked to Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the High Court’s powers to grant bail.

The court evaluated the gravity of the offence alongside the specific quantity of the seizure.

It noted that 30 kilograms of ganja exceeds the "commercial quantity" specified in the NDPS Act Schedule.

Although the applicant argued he was merely a driver with no criminal antecedents, the court found that he failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the contraband recovered from his joint possession.

The court reasoned that the substantial quantity of the drug recovered prima facie indicated the applicant's involvement in illicit trafficking.

Given the serious nature of the offence and the failure to rebut the presumption of involvement at this stage, the court deemed the application for bail unfit for allowance.

The Court held that the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics from the joint possession of the accused, coupled with the lack of a satisfactory explanation, bars the grant of bail at this stage.

The application was accordingly dismissed.