Bail granted for sub-commercial quantity of ganja where Section 37 rigours were inapplicable.

On 30 May 2026, officials of Police Station G.R.P., Raipur, allegedly received secret information that an unidentified person had kept ganja in a trolley suitcase near the A.C. Dormitory, Naya Gate.

The police reached the spot and seized 10.700 kilograms of ganja from the suitcase, following which Crime No. 80/2026 was registered against Akshay Kumar under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

The applicant was arrested on 30 May 2026 and filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant contended that the search and seizure did not comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, that the recovered quantity was below the commercial quantity of 20 kilograms, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the recovered quantity was less than commercial quantity, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act involving 10.700 kilograms of ganja, a quantity below the prescribed commercial quantity?

2. Whether the alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the absence of a search warrant disentitled the applicant from bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which criminalises possession and related activities involving cannabis.

The Court considered the statutory classification of ganja quantities and treated 20 kilograms as the prescribed commercial quantity for the purpose of the application.

Since the alleged recovery was below commercial quantity, the stringent restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, applicable to offences involving commercial quantity and specified serious offences, were held not to operate with full rigour.

The Court also considered the applicant’s contention regarding compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, concerning recording and communicating prior information relating to search and seizure.

The Court assessed the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the quantity of contraband, the applicant’s custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and his antecedent status.

Although the prosecution alleged possession of 10.700 kilograms of ganja, the Court noted that this was below the commercial quantity of 20 kilograms.

Consequently, the statutory rigours ordinarily associated with commercial-quantity offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not treated as a bar to bail.

The Court further considered that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 30 May 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the justification for continued pre-trial detention.

The applicant’s Section 42 objection was recorded, but the order does not contain a separate final determination on the legality of the search and seizure; bail was granted primarily on the basis of the sub-commercial quantity and the other mitigating circumstances.

The bail application was accordingly allowed.

Akshay Kumar was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court and conditions requiring cooperation with the trial, attendance on specified dates, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.