Bail denied where seized quantity exceeds commercial threshold and co-accused’s bail application was previously rejected.

The applicant, N. Subhash, was arrested on 14.09.2024 in connection with Crime No. 304/2024 at Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur

The prosecution alleged that 50.100 kg of cannabis (Ganja) was recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused

The applicant sought regular bail, claiming false implication, non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, and medical issues

It was further noted that the bail application of the co-accused, Shankar Chhatria, had been previously rejected by the High Court on 17.03.2026

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for an offence involving a commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding bail

Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which pertains to offences involving commercial quantities of cannabis

The court's reasoning was guided by the statutory rigors associated with commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, wherein the burden often lies on the applicant to satisfy the court of their innocence and the lack of likelihood of committing future offences

The court found that the quantity of contraband seized (50.100 kg) significantly exceeded the "commercial quantity" threshold

The court dismissed the applicant’s arguments regarding medical ailments, noting that the medical reports indicated his condition was normal and under control

the court emphasized that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the possession of the contraband, weakening the plea of false implication

Applying the principle of parity in the negative sense, the court noted that because the co-accused’s bail application had been rejected on similar grounds, the present applicant was similarly situated and not entitled to relief

The court concluded that given the stage of the trial and the nature of the recovery, bail could not be granted

The court held that the recovery of a commercial quantity of Ganja and the previous rejection of a co-accused’s bail precluded the grant of relief at this stage

the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months, provided there is no legal impediment