Bail granted for intermediate quantity under NDPS Act upon charge-sheet filing and absence of criminal antecedents.

On January 28, 2026, police acting on a secret tip searched an open hut adjacent to the applicant’s residence in Raipur.

They recovered two bags containing approximately 3.700 kilograms of a contraband substance.

The applicant was arrested the same day on the grounds of "conscious possession" due to the proximity of the hut to her home.

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending that the hut was an open area accessible to the public, she had been falsely implicated due to non-fulfillment of illegal police demands, and she is the primary caregiver for two minor children.

The State opposed the bail, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the quantity of the seizure and the progress of the investigation.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offence was registered under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The court also applied the principle that the stringency of bail conditions in NDPS cases is often contingent upon whether the seized quantity is "commercial"; here, the quantity was identified as being less than commercial.

Finally, the court referenced Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding procedural compliance and consequences for the abuse of bail liberty.

The Court determined that the seizure of 3.700 kilograms of contraband did not meet the threshold for "commercial quantity," thereby lessening the statutory rigors for bail.

It observed that because the charge-sheet had already been filed, the necessity for continued custodial interrogation was diminished.

The Court further noted the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and her duration of custody since January 28, 2026.

Applying the logic that a trial's conclusion would take considerable time, and considering the applicant's status as a mother of minor children, the Court concluded that continued detention was unwarranted provided that strict attendance conditions were imposed to ensure the integrity of the trial.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties.

The Court imposed specific mandates, including that the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear at every hearing personally or through counsel under Section 269 of the BNS, and must be personally present for framing charges and recording statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply would result in the revocation of bail.