Commercial quantity of narcotics recovered from joint possession justifies refusal of bail under NDPS Act.

On June 22, 2025, during a routine vehicle check, police intercepted a Bolero vehicle.

One occupant fled into the jungle, while the two applicants were apprehended at the spot

A search of the vehicle led to the recovery of 83.300 kilograms of cannabis (ganja) contained in 80 packets

The applicants were arrested and charged under Crime No. 164/2025 at Police Station Jainagar for offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics

The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication and lack of criminal antecedents

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband from their joint possession

The court applied Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of commercial quantities of cannabis, and Section 29 of the same Act regarding criminal conspiracy

Procedurally, the court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding bail

The court maintained the principle that where recovery significantly exceeds the commercial quantity threshold, the burden of proof for bail remains high and requires a plausible explanation for possession

The court dismissed the applicants' arguments regarding false implication and the duration of their incarceration

It observed that the 83.300 kilograms of ganja seized from the vehicle was significantly higher than the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act

The court found that the contraband was recovered from the "joint possession" of the applicants and that they failed to provide any explanation for the same

Given the quantity involved and the circumstances of the interception, the court concluded that the case did not suggest false implication and that the gravity of the offense precluded the grant of bail

The court held that the possession of a quantity of narcotics well above the commercial limit, coupled with a lack of explanation for such possession, disentitles the accused to regular bail

The trial court was directed to be informed of the order for compliance