Bail for commercial-quantity NDPS offences requires strict satisfaction of Section 37 conditions.

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Special Crime Unit P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 68 of 2024, pending before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.

They were charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly jointly possessing and transporting 300 kg of ganja in two vehicles.

The prosecution case attributed 260 kg of the contraband to the petitioners, allegedly recovered from a Chevrolet Aveo vehicle.

The petitioners relied principally on their prolonged custody and the grant of bail to co-accused Rahul Sethi and Law Kishore Prasad Sahadev.

The State opposed the applications.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the alleged recovery of 260 kg of ganja, a quantity far exceeding the commercial quantity threshold under the NDPS Act?

2. Whether the petitioners could claim bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had been granted bail?

3. Whether prolonged custody, filing of the charge-sheet, commencement of trial, and the constitutional right to speedy trial justified bail notwithstanding Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

The Court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities: where the Public Prosecutor opposes bail, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that the accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

The Court also applied Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act concerning possession/transportation of commercial-quantity cannabis and criminal conspiracy or abetment, respectively.

Bail applications were considered under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Relying on Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Court held that an order granting bail without recording satisfaction under Section 37 cannot constitute a valid precedent for granting bail to a co-accused on parity.

Relying on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891, it held that prolonged custody, filing of the charge-sheet, or commencement of trial are not, by themselves, sufficient grounds for bail under Section 37.

It further relied on State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421, for the principle that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 must operate alongside, and not override, the statutory mandate of Section 37 in commercial-quantity NDPS cases.

The Court found that the allegation against the petitioners concerned the transportation of 260 kg of ganja, substantially above the commercial quantity, allegedly recovered from the vehicle occupied by them.

Accordingly, Section 37 of the NDPS Act was directly attracted.

The bail granted to Law Kishore Prasad Sahadev was not comparable because his alleged role involved 40 kg of ganja, while the bail granted to Rahul Sethi was based on a co-accused’s statement; in any event, the Court held that parity could not be claimed from bail orders that did not record the mandatory satisfaction under Section 37.

The petitioners’ reliance on prolonged custody was also insufficient because custody length, filing of the charge-sheet, and commencement of trial do not independently satisfy Section 37.

On the materials before it, particularly the alleged recovery of 260 kg of ganja, the Court was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were not guilty or that they were unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The bail applications of Rajesh Das and Ravi Shankar Das @ Ravi Sankar Das were rejected and both proceedings were disposed of.

However, the Court permitted the petitioners to renew their bail applications if the trial was not concluded within nine months from the date of the order, or upon the emergence of any other justifiable ground.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.