Bail granted for intermediate-quantity heroin possession given completed investigation and likely trial delay.

On 10 April 2026, police allegedly seized 81.4 grams of heroin from applicant Rajbeer Singh and 10.5 grams from co-accused Kuldeep Singh.

A case was registered under Sections 21(B) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and the applicant was arrested that day

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In support, he relied on the intermediate quantity seized, bail granted to co-accused Rajvinder Kaur, the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, his period in custody, and the likely delay in trial

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail in the circumstances of the case

If bail is granted, what conditions should govern the applicant’s release

The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 21(B) and 27(A) of the NDPS Act.

The Court treated the 81.4 grams of heroin as an intermediate quantity and considered the circumstances relevant to bail, including the applicant’s custody, antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the expected duration of trial, and parity with a bailed co-accused.

The Court considered the seized quantity to be intermediate and noted that co-accused Rajvinder Kaur had already been granted bail.

It also relied on the completed investigation, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, his custody since 10 April 2026, and the likelihood that trial would take time.

On those cumulative considerations, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail.

It directed that the applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, subject to conditions against influencing witnesses or prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and requiring attendance at each trial-court hearing.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial court’s independent decision on the merits.