Bail granted for possession of non-commercial quantity of ganja where applicants lack criminal antecedents.

The applicants were arrested on 25.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 32/2025 at Police Station Anatpur for the alleged possession of 4 kg of Ganja.

The prosecution alleged that the contraband was seized from the joint possession of the applicants and co-accused following a raid based on secret information.

The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contending false implication, non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and a lack of criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail considering the quantity of contraband seized and their period of incarceration.

Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the seizure of 4 kg of Ganja.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the power to grant bail.

It further examined Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The court relied on the principle that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which restrict bail for commercial quantities—do not apply when the seized amount (4 kg) is less than the intermediate quantity, as the commercial threshold for Ganja is 20 kg.

The court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicants had no prior criminal record.

It noted that the 4 kg of Ganja seized from the joint possession of the accused was significantly less than the 20 kg threshold required for "commercial quantity," thereby exempting the applicants from the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Given that the applicants had been in jail since 25.11.2025 and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the court determined that further detention was unnecessary for the judicial process.

The court held that since the quantity was less than intermediate and there were no criminal antecedents, bail was appropriate subject to conditions, including mandatory attendance at trial dates and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Lack of compliance with these conditions empowers the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.