Bail is denied for commercial-quantity NDPS offences when Section 37 conditions remain unsatisfied.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Soro P.S. Case No. 963 of 2025, corresponding to Special Case No. 65 of 2025, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Soro.

He was accused under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning the alleged possession of 504 grams of brown sugar, a commercial quantity, along with co-accused persons.

The prosecution further alleged that the petitioner and others committed theft from the Court Malkhana, including gold, silver, and brown sugar.

The petitioner argued that no contraband had been recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession and that his implication was based principally on the statement of co-accused Laxman Das.

He also submitted that his involvement in another case, Soro P.S. Case No. 901 of 2025, was based on inadmissible material.

The prosecution opposed bail, contending that the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity and that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the allegation of joint possession of 504 grams of brown sugar, a commercial quantity, under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioner had satisfied the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for release on bail.

3. Whether the question of the petitioner’s exclusive and conscious possession could be conclusively determined at the bail stage.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, read with Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act concerning offences involving commercial quantity and criminal conspiracy or abetment.

The Court primarily relied on Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts the grant of bail where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application and the Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Questions relating to exclusive and conscious possession, being factual matters, may ordinarily be examined at trial rather than conclusively decided at the bail stage.

The Court found that the petitioner and the co-accused had allegedly been apprehended in the same house from which the commercial quantity of 504 grams of brown sugar was recovered.

Although the petitioner disputed exclusive and conscious possession and claimed implication through a co-accused’s statement, the Court held that the issue of possession was a question of fact to be determined at trial.

Given the commercial quantity involved, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

The petitioner’s alleged involvement in another criminal case, coupled with the allegation of joint possession of commercial quantity contraband, prevented the Court from recording the requisite satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty and that he would not commit an offence while on bail.

Accordingly, the statutory conditions for bail were not met.

The bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was rejected, and the BLAPL was disposed of.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the court seized of the matter.