Bail granted for intermediate quantity of cannabis as rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are not attracted.

The applicants, Hemraj Thakur and Raunik Baghel, were arrested on January 5, 2026, following a raid by the Investigating Officer where 10.450 kg of Cannabis (Ganja) was seized from their joint possession along with two co-accused

They were charged under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund

The applicants filed this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that the quantity seized is below the commercial threshold and that they have no prior criminal history

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail considering the quantity of the seized substance and their period of incarceration.

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

Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act

The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which imposes strict conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities—do not apply here because the seized amount (10.450 kg) is an "intermediate quantity," as the commercial threshold for Ganja is more than 20 kg

procedural trial requirements under Sections 84 (proclamation), 209 (failure to appear), 269 (non-attendance), and 351 (recording of statements) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS

The Court analyzed the application by weighing the nature of the offense against the circumstances of the applicants. It noted that the 10.450 kg of Ganja recovered from the joint possession of the applicants and co-accused falls below the statutory "commercial quantity" of 20 kg, thereby negating the strict bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The Court further found that the charge sheet had already been filed, the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents, and they had been in custody since January 5, 2026. Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court reasoned that continued detention was unnecessary

The holding was based on the intermediate quantity of the seizure, lack of criminal history, and the stage of the proceedings. The bail was granted subject to specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during key trial stages (framing of charges/statements), and strict compliance with Section 269 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding court attendance