Bail denied where commercial-quantity seizure and prima facie conspiracy evidence trigger Section 37 NDPS rigours.

On 31 October 2025, acting on secret information, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a Tata Harrier allegedly transporting ganja near Kumhari Toll Plaza.

The authorities seized 271.641 kg of ganja contained in 265 packets from the alleged joint possession of Rajaram Pal and Shishupal Rajput.

A case was registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed; the prosecution alleged, on the basis of accused-memorandum statements, the involvement of other co-accused in the procurement and transportation conspiracy

The applicants, in custody since 31 October 2025, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, that conscious possession was not established, and that the trial would be delayed.

One of ten prosecution witnesses had been examined

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the commercial quantity involved and the rejection of bail applications filed by two co-accused

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the alleged seizure of 271.641 kg of ganja, substantially exceeding the notified commercial quantity

Whether the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were satisfied so as to permit the applicants’ release on bail

Whether the applicants’ submissions regarding non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, completion of investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, and likely delay in trial justified bail despite the applicability of Section 37

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It applied Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, relating respectively to prohibited dealings, possession or transportation of commercial-quantity cannabis, liability concerning premises or vehicles, financing or harbouring drug-trafficking activities, and criminal conspiracy

Since the seized ganja substantially exceeded the notified commercial quantity of 20 kg, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied; bail could therefore be granted only if the Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused were not guilty and that they were unlikely to commit an offence while on bail

The Court also considered the prima facie evidentiary material collected during investigation and the principle of parity in light of the rejection of bail applications filed by co-accused

The Court found that 271.641 kg of ganja had allegedly been seized from the vehicle under the joint possession of the applicants, a quantity far above the commercial threshold of 20 kg; consequently, the stringent conditions of Section 37 were attracted

The material in the case diary, including the memorandum statements of the accused, prima facie indicated the applicants’ involvement in the procurement and transportation of the contraband pursuant to an alleged conspiracy

Although the applicants relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of antecedents, alleged violations of Sections 42 and 50, and the anticipated delay in trial, the Court did not find these circumstances sufficient to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37.

The rejection of bail applications of co-accused Ajay Rajput and Anand Mishra also weighed against the applicants

Considering the substantial commercial quantity, gravity of the offences, prima facie material, and statutory bar under Section 37, the Court held that the applicants had not made out a fit case for 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