Bail granted for intermediate quantity possession where criminal history is unrelated to the NDPS Act.

On October 3, 2025, police conducted a raid at Khursipar Ground based on an informant's tip regarding the illegal sale of intoxicating substances

The applicant was apprehended, and 192 prohibited Proxyco Spas capsules (weighing 139 mg) were allegedly recovered from his possession

A total of 2,044 capsules were seized from all accused persons

The applicant was arrested on November 3, 2025, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed

The applicant’s counsel argued that the contraband was not in his exclusive possession, procedural requirements under Section 42 of the NDPS Act were bypassed, and the quantity seized was less than "commercial quantity"

The State opposed bail, noting the applicant's three prior criminal antecedents from 2014, 2019, and 2021

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the quantity of the seized substance and his criminal history

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail

It considered the penal provisions under Sections 22 C/ (8) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and Section 113(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Furthermore, the Court evaluated the impact of criminal antecedents and the distinction between "commercial" and "less than commercial" quantities under the NDPS framework

Procedural compliance regarding trial attendance was governed by Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS

The Court observed that the 192 capsules (139 mg) recovered from the applicant constituted less than the "commercial quantity" specified under the NDPS Act

While the applicant had three criminal antecedents, the Court noted these were from 2014, 2019, and 2021, and significantly, none were related to the NDPS Act; therefore, they were deemed "old and stale"

The Court further reasoned that since the charge sheet had already been filed and the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time, continued incarceration was not warranted

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense against the applicant's right to liberty and the procedural status of the trial.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) he must not seek unnecessary adjournments during evidence, (ii) he must appear at every hearing, and (iii) he must be present for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail