Completed investigation and likely trial delay support bail for NDPS offences involving non-commercial quantity.

The petitioner and a co-accused were intercepted at IGI Airport after arriving from Bangkok. NCB alleged that 986 grams of ganja were recovered from the petitioner’s backpack and 990 grams from the co-accused’s backpack; the combined quantity was 1.976 kilograms

The petitioner was charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) and had been in custody since 22 May 2026

Her earlier bail application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 9 June 2026, when investigation was ongoing

By the time of this application, the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed; the co-accused had also been granted bail

The petitioner sought regular bail under Sections 483 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail, having regard to the co-accused’s release on bail and the circumstances of the alleged recovery.

2. Whether completion of the investigation, the petitioner’s period in custody, the non-commercial quantity involved and the anticipated duration of trial justified release on bail.

The application was made under Sections 483 and 528 of the BNSS, which the Court identified as the procedural basis for seeking regular bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the circumstances of the case, including the stage of investigation, the period of custody, parity with the co-accused, the quantity involved and the likely duration of trial.

The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for approximately four months, the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed, removing the investigative concerns that had informed the earlier refusal of bail.

It also considered that the co-accused had been granted bail, that the combined quantity attributed to the two accused was not commercial, and that ten witnesses remained to be examined, meaning the trial could take time.

Considering these circumstances together, the Court found that the petitioner had made out a case for bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were solely for deciding bail and would not affect the trial.