Bail denied under Section 37 NDPS Act where commercial quantity and prima facie involvement are established.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 22/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 20(B)(II)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

On 9 February 2026, acting on secret information, the police intercepted a Bolero and two Swift Dzire vehicles near Komakhan Railway Crossing. The applicant was travelling in one of the Swift Dzire vehicles described as the follow vehicle, while 40 kilograms of ganja, packed in two 20-kilogram bags, was recovered from the rear seat of the Bolero.

The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that Section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, and that his mere presence in the follow vehicle did not establish criminal conspiracy under Section 29.

The State opposed bail, relying on the commercial quantity of ganja and the applicant’s alleged involvement in its transportation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite recovery of 40 kilograms of ganja, a quantity above the prescribed commercial quantity, and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the applicability of Section 29 could be conclusively determined at the stage of considering bail.

Whether the applicant’s presence in the follow vehicle prima facie indicated his involvement in transporting the contraband.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS governing regular bail, Sections 20(B)(II)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act concerning possession/transportation of commercial-quantity cannabis and criminal conspiracy, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions on bail where the offence involves commercial quantity.

The Court also considered Section 42 of the NDPS Act concerning recording and communication of information received regarding narcotic offences. At the bail stage, the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence; disputed questions concerning statutory compliance and the applicant’s precise role are ordinarily matters for trial.

The Court noted that 40 kilograms of ganja—substantially above the commercial quantity—was recovered from the Bolero, while the applicant was travelling in the accompanying follow vehicle.

This circumstance was held to indicate his prima facie involvement in the transportation of the contraband, thereby attracting the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant’s objections regarding non-compliance with Section 42 and the absence of a direct recovery from him required evaluation of evidence and could not be conclusively decided without effectively conducting a mini-trial. Similarly, the question whether his conduct constituted an offence under Section 29 was left for determination during trial.

On the material available at the bail stage, the Court was not satisfied that the statutory restrictions under Section 37 were overcome.

The objections concerning Section 42 compliance and the applicability of Section 29 were held to be matters for trial. The first regular bail application was accordingly rejected.