Bail granted for intermediate quantity of contraband as it does not attract Section 37 NDPS rigors.

On February 3, 2026, the applicants were intercepted by the Bagbahara police on NH-353 following a tip-off regarding the transportation of illegal narcotics.

A search of their vehicle led to the recovery of 5.265 kg of Ganja, valued at ₹2,63,250, from the joint possession of the two applicants and one co-accused.

The applicants were arrested on February 4, 2026, and charged under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Following the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants moved this first bail application before the High Court.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the quantity of contraband seized and the duration of their incarceration.

Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession and transportation of cannabis.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail only in cases involving "commercial quantities" (defined as exceeding 20 kg for Ganja).

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

Sections 269, 209, and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding conditions for the misuse of liberty.

The court observed that the total quantity of Ganja seized (5.265 kg) qualifies as an "intermediate quantity," as it falls significantly below the 20 kg threshold prescribed for commercial quantity under the NDPS Act schedule.

Consequently, the court found that the rigorous restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to this case.

The court further noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the applicants had been in custody since February 4, 2026.

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary.

The holding clarified that since the seized quantity was non-commercial and the charge-sheet was filed, the applicants were entitled to bail subject to conditions, including regular attendance at trial and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The court warned that any violation of bail conditions or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.