Bail granted for intermediate quantity NDPS possession marginally exceeding small quantity absent criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on January 7, 2026, following a police raid at Dulna Tiraha, where he and a co-accused were apprehended.

A search of the applicant's person allegedly yielded a plastic packet containing 5.68 grams of Heroin (Chitta).

Consequently, Crime No. 10/2026 was registered at Police Station Gobra-Nawapara for offences under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The applicant moved this first bail application after the filing of the charge-sheet, having been in custody since his arrest.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the quantity of contraband seized and the procedural status of the case.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

Section 21(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which stipulates punishments for contravention involving an "intermediate quantity" of manufactured drugs.

The statutory thresholds for Heroin, where "small quantity" is defined as up to 5 grams and "commercial quantity" as 250 grams or more.

Procedural safeguards from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding trial attendance and consequences of default.

The court balanced the nature of the offence against the specific circumstances of the applicant.

The court noted that the seized quantity of 5.68 grams of Heroin, while technically exceeding the "small quantity" limit of 5 grams, was only "marginally higher" and remained "significantly less" than the 250-gram commercial threshold.

Because the quantity was intermediate, the strict prohibitory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.

The court further emphasized that the investigation was complete as the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, and he had already suffered incarceration for over two months.

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the court found no justification for continued pre-trial detention.

The holding is subject to conditions including mandatory appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and potential proceedings under Section 269 or 209 of the BNS for failure to comply with appearance requirements.