Bail granted for non-commercial NDPS quantity citing clean antecedents and completion of investigation.

The applicant was arrested on 25.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 386/2025 registered at Police Station Kondagaon for offenses under the NDPS Act

Acting on an informant's tip, police intercepted a motorcycle and recovered five packets containing a total of 4.220 kilograms of ganja from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused

The applicant has been in judicial custody since the date of arrest, and the investigation has concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given the quantity of contraband seized and his lack of criminal antecedents

Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which addresses the punishment for contravention in relation to the cannabis plant and cannabis

The Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail

Statutory classification of contraband quantities under the NDPS Act, noting the seized amount in relation to "intermediate quantity" thresholds

The Court reasoned that the applicant was entitled to bail based on several mitigating factors.

it noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent trial court, indicating that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary

the Court observed that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents, suggesting a lower risk of recidivism

the Court emphasized that the 4.220 kilograms of ganja seized from the joint possession of the accused was "less than intermediate quantity"

By establishing that the quantity was not commercial, the Court navigated the stringent bail restrictions typically associated with the NDPS Act and concluded that the nature and gravity of the offense, under these specific circumstances, favored the release of the applicant

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

The Court imposed specific conditions to ensure trial integrity, including mandates that the applicant shall not seek adjournments, must remain present on all trial dates as per Section 269 of the BNSS, and must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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