Bail denied where the applicant’s alleged role involved 520 kg of ganja, far exceeding commercial quantity.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after his arrest in Crime No. 03/2026, registered at Police Station Komakhan, Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The prosecution alleged that 530 kg of ganja was seized from co-accused persons travelling in an ambulance, and that the applicant’s name emerged during investigation.

The applicant argued that he had been implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum statement, had no active role or criminal antecedents, and had been in custody since 14 March 2026.

The State opposed bail, referring to the commercial quantity involved, the filed charge-sheet, and the rejection of a co-accused’s bail application.

The Court considered the quantity seized as 520 kg in its bail assessment.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the alleged role attributed to him and the quantity of ganja seized.

Whether the rejection of a co-accused’s bail application weighed against granting bail to the applicant.

The application was made under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides the procedural basis for seeking bail before the High Court.

The applicant faced charges under Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the quantity seized, the role attributed to the applicant, and the prior rejection of a co-accused’s bail application.

The order cited no judicial precedent and did not expressly set out or analyse the statutory bail test under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court found that the alleged seizure of 520 kg of ganja was far above commercial quantity and considered the role attributed to the applicant in the alleged offence.

It also took account of the prior rejection of co-accused Kunal Ramdas Sonwane’s bail application.

On those considerations, the Court was not persuaded to grant bail, notwithstanding the applicant’s submissions concerning his lack of criminal antecedents and the length of time likely to be taken by the trial.