Bail granted for possession of intermediate quantity of psychotropic substances where no criminal antecedents existed.

The applicant was arrested on 08.01.2026 (noted as 27.01.2026 in later paragraphs) following a police tip-off.

It is alleged that the applicant, along with two co-accused, was found in joint possession of 17 strips of Nitrazepam Tablets (10 mg each, total weight approx. 90.1 grams) and a Maruti Swift Dzire vehicle.

The police registered Crime No. 11/2026 under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act (referred to as Section 20(B) elsewhere in the order).

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending he was falsely implicated and that the seized quantity was below commercial limits.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the seized substance and the duration of his incarceration.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, specifically regarding the possession of psychotropic substances (Nitrazepam) where the quantity seized is less than the "commercial quantity" defined under the Act, thereby not attracting the stringent bail rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Procedural compliance under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding trial attendance and consequences of default.

The Court observed that the total quantity of Nitrazepam seized (90.1 grams) from the joint possession of the accused persons was less than the "commercial quantity".

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents.

Reasoning that the applicant had been in custody since 27.01.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial would likely take a significant amount of time, the Court determined that further detention was unnecessary.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense against the period of incarceration and the technical classification of the seized drug quantity to justify the exercise of its discretionary power to grant bail.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must be present for all trial dates (subject to Section 269 BNS), and must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS. Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and initiate proceedings under Section 209 BNS or Section 84 BNSS.