01Facts
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 204/2026 registered under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that five persons were transporting ganja on three motorcycles and that 2.05 kg was seized from the applicant, while the total seizure from the group was 10.05 kg.
¶ 2The applicant submitted that the total quantity was below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, and he had been in custody since 1 October 2026. The State opposed bail.
¶ 3–402Issues
i.Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the case.
¶ 1, 3–6ii.Whether the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied, given the quantity of ganja seized.
¶ 3, 603Law Applied
The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.
¶ 1The alleged offence was under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.
¶ 1The Court accepted that the total seizure of 10.05 kg of ganja was below commercial quantity and that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act therefore did not apply in this case.
¶ 3, 6The order cites no precedent.
Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20Section 37
04Reasoning
The Court considered the total seizure to be intermediate quantity and below commercial quantity, and noted that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and he had been in judicial custody since 1 October 2026.
¶ 6Given those circumstances and the likelihood that trial would take time, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail.
¶ 605Holding
The Court allowed the bail application.
¶ 6It directed that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions concerning non-interference with witnesses, conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and attendance at every trial date.
¶ 6–7The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s decision on the merits.
¶ 8Original Court PDF
SAMEER KHANvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
