Bail granted under Section 20(B) NDPS Act where seized quantity was below commercial quantity.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 58/2026 registered at Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, for an offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid on 30 April 2026 and allegedly seized 10.952 kg of ganja from a white-and-blue Vimal Pan Masala bag. The contraband was contained in two packets wrapped in muddy cello tape and was alleged to be in the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Akhil Mohammad Sheikh.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). He contended that he had been falsely implicated, that the seized quantity was less than commercial quantity, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he had remained in custody since 30 April 2026.

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act involving 10.952 kg of ganja allegedly recovered from joint possession?

Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial justified grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, and Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, which governs offences relating to cannabis/ganja.

The Court treated the fact that the seized quantity was less than commercial quantity as a material circumstance in assessing bail.

Since the case did not involve commercial quantity, the stringent limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not expressly invoked.

The Court also applied the general bail principles relating to the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, length of custody, and the likelihood that the trial would take time.

The Court considered the prosecution allegations and the case diary, but found that the seized quantity of 10.952 kg was below commercial quantity and that the contraband was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and the co-accused.

The applicant had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had already been submitted, and he had remained in custody since 30 April 2026.

In view of these factors, together with the anticipated delay in conclusion of the trial, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted at the bail stage.

The Court therefore allowed the application subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent misuse of bail.

The High Court directed that Santosh Shankrarrao Bawankar be released in Crime No. 58/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court on scheduled dates, to comply with proceedings arising from any proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial Court for compliance.