Bail granted for possessing 7 kg ganja, as Section 37’s embargo was not attracted.

On 19 May 2026, police at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund, allegedly received secret information that a person carrying ganja on a motorcycle was proceeding towards Kasekera. The applicant was intercepted and allegedly found carrying 7 kg of ganja in a white plastic bag tied behind the motorcycle. Crime No. 76/2026 was registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The applicant, arrested on 3 June 2026, filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). He denied the recovery, asserted false implication, argued that 7 kg was below commercial quantity and that Section 37 of the NDPS Act was therefore inapplicable, and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents and that the trial would take time.

The State opposed bail, although it acknowledged that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, concerning possession of cannabis in a quantity greater than small but less than commercial quantity.

The Court accepted the applicant’s submission that the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted where the alleged contraband is below commercial quantity.

In determining bail, the Court considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial.

The Court considered the alleged recovery of 7 kg of ganja in the context of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and the applicant’s submission that the quantity was below commercial quantity, thereby excluding the stringent conditions under Section 37.

Although the prosecution opposed release, the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, he had remained in custody since 3 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that continued incarceration would not be warranted and that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.