Bail cannot be granted solely because a hydroponic ganja seizure falls below commercial quantity.

The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 3, was intercepted with two others at Kempegowda International Airport after arriving from Bangkok on 24 April 2026.

The officers seized 26 kg 230 g of alleged hydroponic ganja in total, of which 16 kg 360 g was attributed to the petitioner.

After the petitioner’s bail application was rejected by the Special Court, he sought regular bail before the High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act; the alleged offences arose under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c), 28 and 29, read with Section 8(c), of that Act.

The Court relied on its order dated 17 August 2026 in Crl.P. No. 9787/2026 and connected matters, which observed that hydroponic ganja is not separately specified in the Central Government notification prescribing small and commercial quantities, and that the ganja entry at serial number 55 is therefore relevant for quantity classification.

The same order reasoned, however, that hydroponic ganja’s higher THC content, potency and social harm are relevant to bail, and that an accused cannot obtain bail merely because the alleged quantity is intermediate.

The petitioner’s counsel did not identify non-compliance with any statutory provision, and the Court noted that 16 kg 360 g of the alleged contraband was attributed to him.

It considered the reasoning in the earlier order concerning the potency and social harm associated with hydroponic ganja and applied that reasoning to the petitioner, who was allegedly involved in bringing it from Bangkok. The Court held that the earlier decision concerning similarly placed accused persons was squarely applicable and that the quantity-based argument did not warrant bail.

The Court dismissed the petition and refused regular bail to the petitioner.