Bail granted for below-commercial NDPS quantity where non-appearance resulted from custody in another case.

The applicant, Mohsin, was charge-sheeted in Case Crime No. 65 of 2021 for offences under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning recovery of 5.16 grams of smack, described as below commercial quantity.

He had previously been granted bail by the High Court on 19 March 2021, but subsequently failed to appear before the trial court on certain dates, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant and his arrest on 28 July 2026.

The applicant stated that his non-appearance was attributable to his being in judicial custody in another case, Case Crime No. 449 of 2024.

The State opposed bail on the ground that he had subsequently been implicated in two other NDPS cases, although he had obtained bail in those matters as well.

The State did not dispute the applicant’s prior bail in the present case or the fact that his non-appearance was connected with custody in another matter.

The Court applied Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, under which unauthorised possession, sale, purchase or other dealings in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances are penalised; the case involved a recovery of 5.16 grams of smack, below commercial quantity.

In assessing bail, the Court treated the applicant’s prior grant of bail, the circumstances of his subsequent arrest, and the small quantity of contraband as material considerations.

The Court noted that the applicant had already been granted bail in the case and that his subsequent custody resulted from non-appearance before the trial court, leading to issuance and execution of a non-bailable warrant.

The Court further accepted that the non-appearance was explained, at least in part, by the applicant’s custody in another criminal case.

Although the State alleged continuing involvement in NDPS offences, the Court gave decisive weight to the applicant’s earlier bail, the absence of a dispute regarding the reason for his non-appearance, and the fact that the alleged contraband was only 5.16 grams and below commercial quantity.

On that assessment, the Court concluded that the applicant deserved to be released on bail without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The applicant was directed to be released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

The release was subject to conditions that he report to the nearest police station on the first and fifteenth day of every month; provide his mobile number to the concerned Station House Officer, who would place it under surveillance; obtain prior permission from the trial court before leaving the concerned district; and comply with these conditions for nine months.