Bail Granted for Heroin Possession Involving Less Than Commercial Quantity and No Previous Criminal Antecedents

The applicant was arrested on 12.04.2026 following a police raid on a vehicle parked behind the Dhamtari Bus Stand

Police recovered 10.30 grams of Heroin (Chitta), a lighter, and burnt aluminum foils from the vehicle's dashboard

The applicant was charged under Sections 21(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act

In his bail plea, the applicant claimed false implication based solely on co-accused statements and argued no stolen articles were recovered (noting discrepancies in the counsel's argument regarding BNS sections related to theft)

The State opposed bail, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the quantity of contraband seized and his period of incarceration.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, specifically the distinction between "intermediate" and "commercial" quantities of contraband under Section 21(b) and the penalities for conspiracy under Section 29

General principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the filing of the charge-sheet and the absence of criminal antecedents as factors favoring the grant of bail

The Court observed that the 10.30 grams of Heroin recovered from the applicant constitutes "less than commercial quantity" as defined by the NDPS Act, which significantly reduces the statutory rigors for granting bail

The Court noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet (Final Report No. 99/2026) had already been filed before the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dhamtari

The Court highlighted that the applicant has no previous criminal record and has been in judicial custody since 12.04.2026

Given that a trial usually takes considerable time to conclude, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance

The trial court was directed to treat any breach of conditions as an abuse of liberty