Bail Granted for Sub-Commercial Ganja Recovery Despite Prior NDPS Conviction and Criminal Antecedents

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 82 of 2026, registered at Police Station Mujgahan, for an offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that 2.10 kg of ganja was seized from his possession.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), submitting that the charge-sheet had been filed, he had been in custody since 14 April 2026, and trial would take time.

The State opposed bail, relying on the quantity seized.

The applicant had ten antecedents: one NDPS conviction resulting in three months’ rigorous imprisonment and nine Gambling Act cases, most of which had been disposed of.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the quantity seized, his antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of trial?

The Court considered the power to grant regular bail under Section 483 BNSS and the alleged offence under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.

It treated the fact that the seized 2.10 kg of ganja was less than the commercial quantity as relevant to the bail determination.

The Court cited no precedent or further statutory test in its reasoning.

The Court weighed the recovery of 2.10 kg of ganja and the applicant’s ten antecedents, including his prior NDPS conviction, against the fact that the remaining cases were under the Gambling Act and most had been disposed of.

It also considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 14 April 2026, and trial might take time.

On balance, it concluded that bail was warranted.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant to remain available for police interrogation, refrain from influencing persons acquainted with the facts, and avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial court’s decision on the merits.