Bail granted where sub-commercial charas recovery was attributed solely to the co-accused.

The applicant, Anil Pal, was in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 74 of 2026, registered at Police Station Muni-Ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal, for offences under Sections 8/20 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

According to the prosecution, on 30 June 2026, the police intercepted the applicant and the co-accused during routine checking.

A black backpack allegedly carried by the co-accused was searched, resulting in the recovery of a black stick-shaped substance, allegedly charas, weighing 940 grams.

The applicant contended that no contraband was recovered from his personal possession, that he had been falsely implicated following an altercation with the police, and that no independent public witness supported the alleged recovery.

He also challenged the recovery proceedings on the ground of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and submitted that the quantity was below commercial quantity, thereby excluding the rigours of Section 37.

The State opposed bail but conceded that, having regard to the quantity, Section 37 was not attracted.

Whether the applicant, from whose personal possession no contraband was recovered and who had no previous criminal history, was entitled to bail in an offence under Sections 8/20 and 60 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the alleged recovery of 940 grams of charas attracted the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant’s bail should be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court applied Sections 8/20 and 60 of the NDPS Act, under which unauthorised possession, transportation, or involvement in cannabis-related offences is punishable.

It considered Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity or the offences specifically covered by that provision; the Court proceeded on the basis that the alleged recovery of 940 grams of charas was below commercial quantity and that Section 37 was therefore not attracted.

The Court also noted the applicant’s contention regarding the safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which regulate searches of a person, although it did not finally adjudicate that contention at the bail stage.

Bail was determined on the cumulative consideration of the nature of the alleged recovery, the absence of recovery from the applicant, absence of criminal antecedents, and the period of custody, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Court found that the alleged 940-gram recovery was attributed to the co-accused and not to the applicant personally.

The applicant had no previous criminal history and had remained in custody since 30 June 2026.

Since the State itself accepted that Section 37 was not attracted owing to the quantity of the alleged contraband, the stringent statutory bar to bail did not apply.

Without conclusively determining the applicant’s objections concerning the absence of independent witnesses, Section 50 compliance, or deficiencies in the description and accounting of the alleged charas sticks, the Court held that these circumstances, taken cumulatively, made out a case for bail.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicant was directed to be released in FIR/Case Crime No. 74 of 2026 upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions that he would not leave India without prior permission, cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Investigating Officer when required, refrain from tampering with evidence or witnesses and committing criminal activity, and surrender his passport, if any.

Bail was made liable to cancellation upon violation of the conditions or misuse of the liberty granted.