Bail denied to habitual offender in NDPS case despite recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband.

On October 11, 2025, police intercepted a bus based on confidential information and recovered 2.100 kg of Ganja each from the individual bags of the applicant, Deepak Sharma, and co-accused Nitish Chandra, totaling 4.200 kg.

Investigation revealed a transaction of Rs. 16,000 via PhonePe from co-accused Bhagwan Sethi for the sale of the contraband.

The applicant was arrested on the same day and charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that the quantity recovered was below commercial standards and that he had been in custody since the date of arrest.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's criminal antecedent in Crime No. 656/2025 involving similar NDPS offenses.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the intermediate quantity of contraband and his criminal history.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court regarding bail (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC).

Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) (punishment for possession of intermediate quantity of cannabis) and 29 (punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The principle that a history of habitual offending and criminal antecedents under the same statute serves as a significant deterrent to the discretionary grant of bail.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense alongside the applicant’s conduct.

While the defense argued that the seized 4.200 kg of Ganja was an intermediate quantity, the Court emphasized the "joint possession" of the contraband by the applicant and the co-accused.

Crucially, the Court noted the applicant’s criminal antecedent (Crime No. 656 of 2025) registered at Police Station Ambikapur for a similar NDPS offense, where a bail application was still pending.

By linking the current recovery with the prior record, the Court categorized the applicant as a "habitual offender".

Consequently, the Court determined that the risk of recidivism and the nature of the recovery outweighed the duration of the applicant's pre-trial detention.

The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and directed that a copy of the order be sent for compliance.