### Bail may be granted for intermediate quantity NDPS offenses when the accused is a government servant with minimal flight risk.

The petitioner, Sri Salim Uddin Ahammed, a BSF Constable, was apprehended on November 5, 2025, at Udaipur Railway Station based on secret information.

Police recovered 51.5 grams of heroin from his possession out of a total of 128.7 grams recovered from three individuals.

A charge sheet was filed under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The Special Judge, Gomati, allowed a petition for "custody trial" on January 29, 2026, citing the petitioner’s status as a BSF personnel and the risk of him fleeing to his home state, Assam.

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking bail on the grounds that investigation is complete and he is a government employee with a remote chance of absconding.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving an intermediate quantity of contraband where the charge sheet has already been filed.

Whether the status of the accused as a member of a disciplined force (BSF) and a non-resident of the state warrants continued detention despite the non-application of Section 37 rigours.

The court applied Section 21(b) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, noting that as the quantity was "intermediate," the strict limitations on bail under Section 37 do not apply.

It relied on the general principles of bail as articulated in *Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi*, which emphasizes the nature of accusations, the severity of punishment, the character of the accused, and the likelihood of securing the presence of the accused at trial.

The court distinguished *State of Tripura v. Mijanur Rahaman*, noting that while filing a charge sheet is not an automatic ground for bail in commercial quantity cases, general rules apply to intermediate quantities.

The Court observed that since the quantity of heroin (51.5g) was intermediate, the "reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty" test under Section 37 was not required.

The Court noted that the petitioner has been in custody since November 5, 2025, and the investigation is complete.

It reasoned that because the petitioner is a government employee (BSF Constable), the risk of abscondence is remote.

Furthermore, since most prosecution witnesses are government officials and the remaining private witnesses reside in Udaipur, the risk of the petitioner influencing witnesses from his place of posting in Bagafa is minimal.

The Court concluded that while drug trafficking is serious, the maximum punishment of 10 years and the petitioner's specific circumstances justified a shift from incarceration to trial-based attendance.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties (or ₹1,00,000 with one surety) who must be permanent residents of Tripura.

The holding was conditioned upon the petitioner not leaving Tripura without the Special Judge's permission, notifying his Departmental Authority of any such permission, depositing his passport, and regularly attending trial.