Bail granted for intermediate quantity under NDPS Act where no prior drug-related antecedents exist.

On November 15, 2025, acting on a tip-off, police intercepted the applicant, Khilawan Das Mahant, on a motorcycle in District Raigarh

A search of a bag on the motorcycle led to the recovery of 1,008 capsules (50.4 grams) of SPAMO-PROXYVON PLUS containing Tramadol Hydrochloride, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, and Acetaminophen

The applicant was arrested and charged under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated, that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with, and that he had been in custody since the date of arrest while the trial remained pending

The State opposed the bail, citing the recovery of contraband and the existence of one prior criminal antecedent under the IPC

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the quantity of the seized contraband and the duration of his incarceration

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power to grant regular bail

Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of manufactured drugs and psychotropic substances

legal distinction between "intermediate" and "commercial" quantities under the NDPS Act to determine the applicability of stringent bail restrictions

procedural compliance was ensured through the application of Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court evaluated the merits of the bail plea by weighing the nature of the offence against the period of detention.

It specifically noted that the total weight of the seized capsules (50.4 grams) was less than the "commercial quantity" specified under the NDPS Act, which significantly reduces the statutory barriers to bail

The Court further observed that although the applicant had one prior IPC antecedent, he had no previous criminal history under the NDPS Act

Given that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been languishing in jail since November 15, 2025, the Court concluded that since the trial was unlikely to conclude imminently, continued pretrial detention was unnecessary

The Court ordered his release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) he must appear personally at key trial stages (framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS); and (iii) any violation of bail conditions or failure to appear would allow the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS