Bail denied under Section 37 where commercial-quantity ganja recovery and prior NDPS antecedent established prima facie involvement.

The applicant was arrested on 18 April 2026 in Crime No. 257/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Acting on secret information, the police intercepted the applicant and two co-accused persons near Jawali Nala Road, Bilaspur, after they allegedly alighted from an auto-rickshaw.

The prosecution alleged that 6 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the applicant’s backpack and 14 kilograms from the co-accused persons.

The applicant asserted false implication, disputed the recovery and seizure proceedings, and alleged procedural irregularities concerning weighing, sampling, timing, and the seizure documentation.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged recovery, the gravity of the offence, and the applicant’s previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act.

This was the applicant’s first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the alleged recovery of commercial quantity of ganja and the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the applicant’s challenges to the alleged recovery, seizure proceedings, sampling, weighing, and other procedural irregularities justified the grant of bail at this stage?

Whether the applicant’s previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act weighed against the grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, together with Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Since the alleged seizure was treated as commercial quantity, the Court applied the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, under which bail cannot ordinarily be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court also considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the prima facie material relating to possession and trafficking, and the applicant’s previous NDPS-related criminal antecedent.

The Court treated the alleged recovery of 6 kilograms from the applicant and the recovery from the co-accused as a total seizure of 21 kilograms in joint possession, prima facie falling within commercial quantity.

On that basis, the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were held to apply.

The Court found that the applicant had not furnished a satisfactory explanation regarding possession and that the substantial recovery prima facie indicated involvement in illicit trafficking.

Although the applicant disputed the seizure and pointed to alleged defects in weighing, sampling, and documentation, the Court, upon examining the case diary, did not consider those contentions sufficient at the bail stage to establish reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not guilty.

The applicant’s previous NDPS antecedent further militated against release on bail.

The first bail application filed by Aditya Kuchbadiya under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 257/2026, was accordingly rejected.