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

The applicants, Anil Kumar Thakre and Mayank Yadav, filed a second application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 472/2024 registered at Police Chowki Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, for offences under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

According to the prosecution, on 5 November 2024, police intercepted two persons, Balram Chandrakar and Vikram Baghel, travelling on a motorcycle and carrying two sacks containing ganja. The total quantity seized was 28 kilograms, allegedly procured from Odisha and intended to be delivered to the present applicants, who were apprehended near a roadside eatery on Old Dhamtari Road.

The applicants had allegedly been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused.

The applicants’ first bail application had been rejected on merits on 10 July 2025.

In the second application, they contended that no contraband had been seized from them, the call detail records did not establish contact with the principal accused, and several prosecution witnesses, including seizure and memorandum witnesses, had turned hostile.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the recovery of 28 kilograms of ganja and the bar imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the grounds raised in the second bail application—absence of direct recovery, hostile witnesses, alleged lack of incriminating call records, prolonged custody, and reliance on a subsequent Supreme Court order—constituted sufficient grounds for reconsidering the earlier rejection of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, relating respectively to offences involving cannabis and criminal conspiracy or abetment.

Since 28 kilograms of ganja was treated as being substantially above the commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act was held applicable; consequently, bail could be granted only upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused were not guilty and were unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court further applied the principle that detailed appreciation or evaluation of evidence is impermissible at the stage of considering bail.

The Court treated the recovery of 28 kilograms of ganja as involving a quantity much above the commercial threshold and therefore attracting the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

It also noted that the applicants’ first bail application had already been rejected on merits and that the prosecution case connected them with the seized contraband through the statements of the co-accused and the alleged delivery arrangement.

Although the applicants relied on the absence of direct recovery, hostile witnesses, call-detail records, prolonged custody, and the subsequent Supreme Court order, the Court declined to undertake a detailed assessment of these evidentiary matters at the bail stage.

In view of the statutory bar under Section 37, the commercial quantity involved, and the absence of grounds warranting reconsideration of the earlier decision, the Court concluded that the applicants had not established a case for release on bail.

It held that, considering the commercial quantity of ganja, the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the prior rejection of bail on merits, the applicants were not entitled to regular bail.

Accordingly, the second bail application of Anil Kumar Thakre and Mayank Yadav was rejected.