Bail Denied for Commercial Quantity of Ganja Due to Joint Possession and Parity with Co-Accused

On February 1, 2026, police intercepted a TATA Zest car near Komakhan Chowk based on a tip-off regarding the transport of narcotics.

The applicant, Prashant Nanda, was driving the vehicle with three co-accused passengers.

A search of the vehicle’s trunk revealed two plastic bags containing 25 kg of Ganja.

The applicant was arrested and charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending he was merely a driver with no knowledge of the trunk's contents and that no independent witnesses supported the seizure.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband

The Court applied Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which prescribe stringent penalties for the possession and conspiracy to transport commercial quantities of narcotics.

It further operated under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the High Court’s powers to grant bail.

The court adhered to the principle of parity in judicial consistency, noting the prior rejection of bail for co-accused persons in the same crime.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense, noting that the 25 kg of Ganja recovered from the joint possession of the accused significantly exceeded the "commercial quantity" threshold.

The Court dismissed the applicant's defense of lack of knowledge or false implication, finding that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the contraband found in the vehicle he was operating.

Crucially, the Court applied the principle of consistency, observing that the bail applications of the three co-accused (Dhananjay Nag, Deepak Mahanand, and Shankar Harpal) had already been rejected by the same High Court on April 20, 2026, in MCRC No. 2112/2026.

Consequently, the Court found no merit in treating the driver differently from the other occupants under these circumstances.

The Court held that given the commercial quantity of the seized narcotics and the prior rejection of co-accused bail applications, it was not a fit case for regular bail.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.