Bail granted for non-commercial quantity of contraband absent conscious possession and prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) following his arrest on January 5, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 14/2026

The prosecution alleged that 4.256 kg of Ganja was recovered from an open place following secret information

The applicant was not apprehended at the scene of the crime, and no contraband was recovered from his person; he was implicated solely based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused

Following the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed while the applicant remained in judicial custody

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given that the seized quantity of contraband is below the commercial threshold and the implication is based on a co-accused's statement

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS governing regular bail

It primarily considered Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which deals with the punishment for possessing intermediate quantities of Ganja

The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply only to "commercial quantities," which for Ganja is defined as 20 kg or more in the Act’s schedule

Additionally, the Court referenced Sections 84, 209, and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the conditions and consequences of bail forfeiture

The Court noted that the 4.256 kg of Ganja seized was significantly less than the 20 kg commercial threshold, thereby rendering the stringent limitations of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable

It observed that the recovery was made from an "open place" rather than the applicant's conscious or exclusive possession, and noted the applicant’s lack of previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act

The Court reasoned that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been incarcerated since early January 2026, continued detention was unnecessary as the trial would likely take considerable time to conclude

Consequently, the Court found the applicant eligible for bail without delving into the merits of the prosecution's evidence

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) the applicant must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS; and (iii) any default or attempt to evade trial would result in proceedings under Sections 84, 209, or 269 of the BNS

The Court directed the trial court to be informed of the order for immediate compliance