Bail granted for below-commercial-quantity ganja possession, as Section 37 NDPS Act rigours were inapplicable.

On 7 June 2026, acting on secret information regarding transportation of contraband, Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, intercepted an auto-rickshaw allegedly driven by the applicant and recovered 1.576 kg of ganja from his possession.

Crime No. 504/2026 was registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and the applicant was arrested. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent court.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, contending, inter alia, that Section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, the recovered quantity was below the commercial quantity of 20 kg, the rigours of Section 37 were therefore inapplicable, and the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail primarily on the seriousness of the offence, while acknowledging that the quantity recovered was less than commercial quantity.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, under which possession of cannabis is punishable.

It considered the statutory commercial quantity for ganja to be 20 kg and treated the recovery of 1.576 kg as less than commercial quantity.

Consequently, the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were treated as inapplicable to the present recovery.

The Court also considered the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, nature of the allegation, and criminal antecedent while exercising bail discretion.

The Court found that the alleged recovery of 1.576 kg of ganja was substantially below the commercial quantity of 20 kg; therefore, the statutory rigours applicable to offences involving commercial quantities under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not govern the bail determination.

The investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the need for further custodial detention.

Although the applicant had one criminal antecedent under the IPC, the Court regarded it as old and stale.

Balancing the nature and gravity of the offence with the sub-commercial quantity, completed investigation, and likely delay in trial, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The applicant’s contention regarding non-compliance with Section 42 was noted, but the order does not record a definitive adjudication on that issue.

The Court directed that Ramkrishna Pandey be released on bail in Crime No. 504/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further provided for consequences in the event of misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to proclamation proceedings.