Bail denied in commercial-quantity NDPS case due to similar criminal antecedent and prior bail misuse.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 41/2025 registered at Police Station Sukma for an offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

On 11 June 2025, police allegedly recovered two packets containing 9.950 kg of ganja and a Samsung keypad mobile phone from the applicant. Together with recoveries from co-accused persons, the total seizure was stated to be 24.600 kg of ganja.

The applicant had remained in custody since 11 June 2025, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The defence relied on alleged non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, hostile seizure and memorandum witnesses, absence of exclusive possession, and irregularities in sampling.

The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds of the commercial quantity involved, the applicant’s alleged possession of 9.950 kg of ganja, a pending NDPS antecedent from Haryana, and the rejection of bail applications of two co-accused persons.

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the alleged recovery of ganja in a commercial-quantity case under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant’s pending NDPS antecedent, alleged misuse of previously granted bail, and the rejection of bail to co-accused persons justified refusal of bail.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, concerning punishment for possession, sale, purchase or transportation of cannabis involving commercial quantity.

The Court also considered the prosecution’s reliance on the restrictive bail principles applicable to commercial-quantity offences under the NDPS Act.

The applicant’s arguments invoked Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and the sampling requirements under Standing Order No. 1/89, but the Court did not find those submissions sufficient at the bail stage.

It relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, for the principle that previous criminal antecedents and misuse of bail may justify cancellation or refusal of bail.

The Court treated the alleged recovery of 9.950 kg of ganja from the applicant, together with the aggregate seizure of 24.600 kg, as a serious commercial-quantity NDPS case.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had remained in custody for over a year, those factors were outweighed by the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant’s pending NDPS case from Haryana, and the Court’s finding that he was a habitual offender who had misused bail previously.

The Court also considered that bail had already been denied to two co-accused persons in the same matter.

In light of these circumstances and the principle stated in Deepak Yadav, the Court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for regular bail.

The Court directed that the trial court was at liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and ordered that a certified copy of the order be supplied to the trial court for information and compliance.