Bail granted for intermediate quantity Ganja as Section 37 NDPS Act rigors do not apply.

On January 7, 2026, police from Rajadevari Outpost intercepted the applicants near Village Bar based on an informer's tip

The police allegedly recovered 7.938 kg of ganja from the applicants while they were transporting it on a Jupiter scooter

Consequently, the applicants were arrested and charged under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)

The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail, contending they were falsely implicated and noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed

The State opposed the bail, noting that while the quantity was below the commercial threshold, Applicant No. 1 had one criminal antecedent from 2016

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the quantity of the seized contraband and the stage of the trial

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail

It further relied on Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which defines offenses related to cannabis

The Court considered the statutory thresholds for "commercial quantity" under the NDPS Act Schedule, noting that for Ganja, the commercial quantity is prescribed as more than 20 kgs, which triggers the restrictive bail rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Procedural compliance was linked to Sections 269, 84, and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court reasoned that because the seized quantity of 7.938 kg of ganja was less than the commercial threshold of 20 kg, the stringent requirements for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted

The Court observed that the applicants had been in custody since January 7, 2026, and since the charge-sheet was already filed, the conclusion of the trial would likely take considerable time

Regarding criminal history, the Court noted that Applicant No. 2 had no antecedents, and Applicant No. 1's single antecedent was from a decade prior (2016), which did not justify continued pretrial detention in the present circumstances

The applicants were granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specific conditions: they must not seek adjournments during the evidence stage, must appear personally for key trial milestones (opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of Section 351 BNSS statements), and must comply with all trial court dates

Any default in these conditions allows the trial court to treat the absence as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Sections 269, 84, or 209 of the BNS