Bail granted for recovery of intermediate quantity of Ganja as rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are not attracted.

The applicant was arrested on December 2, 2025, after police intercepted a bus following a secret tip-off.

During a search near Village Chanchidand, police recovered 12 packets of Ganja weighing 12.300 kgs from the applicant’s bag.

Consequently, Crime No. 117/2025 was registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, contending false implication, non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the fact that the seized quantity was less than commercial quantity.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the quantity of contraband seized and his judicial custody since December 2, 2025.

2. Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the seizure of 12.300 kgs of Ganja.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantively, it considered Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, for the punishment of possessing Ganja.

The court also applied the principles of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail in cases involving "commercial quantities" (defined as more than 20 kgs for Ganja), noting that seizures falling below this threshold do not attract the same statutory rigors.

The court observed that the 12.300 kgs of Ganja recovered from the applicant's possession is functionally an "intermediate quantity," as it is less than the 20 kg threshold required to be classified as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act Schedule.

Because the quantity was non-commercial, the stringent restrictive conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not triggered.

Furthermore, the court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had been in custody for nearly five months (since December 2025), and the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time.

While the applicant had one previous criminal antecedent under the IPC, the court determined this did not preclude him from bail given the specific facts of the current seizure.

The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of Sonu Patel subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including mandatory presence during trial stages and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.