Bail denied for possession of commercial quantity of contraband as rigorous provisions of NDPS Act apply.

The applicant, Durgesh Kumar Sahu, was arrested on August 7, 2025, near Village Rehtikhol after police intercepted a KIA car (CG 10 BJ 5828) based on secret information.

Pursuant to a search conducted under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 45 kilograms of ganja were recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated following a dispute with police over vehicle documents and that no contraband was in his conscious possession.

The State opposed bail, noting that the quantity seized significantly exceeds the commercial threshold.

The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband.

The Court primarily applied Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prescribes stringent punishment for offenses involving commercial quantities of contraband.

The Court also operated under the procedural framework of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the high court's power to grant bail.

Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act (conditions for search of persons) was considered as a requisite procedural safeguard.

The Court found a prima facie case against the applicant based on the recovery of 45 kilograms of ganja—an amount well above the notified commercial quantity—from the joint possession of the accused persons.

Although the applicant alleged false implication due to a verbal altercation over documents, the Court noted that the search was conducted after serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and in the presence of witnesses.

Due to the organized nature of the crime and the gravity of the offense involving commercial quantities, the Court determined that the statutory rigors for bail were not met, regardless of the applicant's duration in custody since August 2025.

Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

However, the trial court was granted liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.