Bail denied where aggregate contraband recovery and allegations of organized criminal activity indicated serious NDPS involvement.

On 8 February 2026, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, allegedly received secret information concerning transportation and sale of ganja and intercepted the applicants along with other accused persons.

The prosecution alleged recovery of 5.014 kg of ganja from Applicant No. 1, Sandeep Kesharwani, and approximately 5.082 kg from Applicant No. 2, Chandrika Uraon, from separate bags.

Recoveries were also allegedly made from other co-accused, resulting in an aggregate seizure of approximately 40.446 kg of ganja.

Crime No. 38/2026 was registered under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the applicants were arrested on the same date.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the recoveries attributed to them were separate, that they had no criminal antecedents, and that they had remained in custody since 8 February 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the aggregate quantity seized and alleging the applicants’ involvement in an organised activity relating to the illegal transportation and sale of ganja.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act?

Whether the separate quantities allegedly recovered from each applicant should be assessed independently for bail purposes, or considered along with the aggregate recovery of 40.446 kg allegedly seized from all accused persons?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, relating to offences involving ganja.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity of contraband allegedly seized, the applicants’ attributed role, and the prosecution’s allegation of organised criminal activity.

The Court treated the total alleged seizure of 40.446 kg and the applicants’ alleged connection with the larger operation as relevant circumstances against bail.

Although the applicants argued that only 5.014 kg and approximately 5.082 kg were separately attributed to them and that the recoveries could not be mechanically aggregated absent proof of conscious and joint possession, the Court placed emphasis on the overall prosecution case.

It considered the aggregate seizure of 40.446 kg, including the quantities allegedly recovered from the applicants, together with the allegations that the applicants were involved in an organised activity concerning transportation and sale of ganja.

On that assessment of the gravity of the allegations and the case diary, the Court held that the applicants did not merit the grant of bail.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.