Bail granted where seized ganja was below commercial quantity and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 71/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, the police conducted a raid and seized 9.60 kilograms of ganja, valued at approximately ₹4,53,000, allegedly from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused.

The applicant denied possession and alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He contended that he had no NDPS-related antecedents, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had remained in custody since 10 May 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged joint possession and the applicant’s previous IPC cases.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 9.60 kilograms of ganja?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, the absence of NDPS-related antecedents, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified grant of bail despite the prosecution’s allegation of joint possession and previous IPC cases?

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 dealings in cannabis.

The Court treated the alleged recovery of 9.60 kilograms of ganja as less than commercial quantity and, consequently, did not apply the stringent twin conditions applicable to offences involving commercial quantity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 10 May 2026, the absence of prior NDPS offences, the pendency of only IPC cases, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

The Court noted that the alleged contraband was recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and the co-accused, but found that the quantity—9.60 kilograms—was below commercial quantity.

It further considered that investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial interrogation.

Although the State referred to two pending IPC cases, the applicant had no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act.

Taking into account the applicant’s custody since 10 May 2026 and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified and that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or 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 sent to the trial court for compliance.