Denial of Bail for Joint Possession of Commercial Quantity Ganja Under NDPS Act.

The three applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 374/2025 involving the illegal possession and sale of contraband

On August 5, 2025, police acted on secret information near District Hospital, Durg, and apprehended Mohit Jaiswal and Dablu Banskaar

Upon search, 11.490 kg of ganja was recovered from Jaiswal and 9.770 kg from Banskaar, totaling 21.260 kg

While no contraband was directly recovered from Rajababu Mali, the prosecution alleged his involvement in the illegal sale in connivance with the others

The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing lack of compliance with search/seizure procedures and lengthy detention

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act

2. Whether the lack of direct physical recovery from one applicant (Rajababu Mali) serves as sufficient grounds for bail despite allegations of connivance in an organized crime

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail

Substantively, the court relied on the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, specifically Sections 20(b), 20(B)(ii)(C), and 21(a), which categorize the severity of offenses based on the quantity of contraband seized

The court observed the stringent threshold for bail involving "commercial quantities" as notified under the NDPS Act, which restricts judicial discretion when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in organized drug trafficking

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense, noting that the total seizure of 21.260 kg of Ganja exceeds the threshold for a "commercial quantity" under the NDPS Act

Regarding Mohit Jaiswal and Dablu Banskaar, the court found their joint possession and Jaiswal's prior criminal antecedent under the BNS as factors weighing against bail

For Rajababu Mali, the court rejected the "no recovery" argument, noting that the case diary suggested he facilitated the illegal sales in connivance with the others, characterizing the operation as an organized crime

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a plausible explanation for the recovery or their involvement, concluding that the risk of false implication was minimal and the trial was already in progress

The Court held that the commercial quantity of the contraband and the organized nature of the crime precluded the grant of liberty at this stage

The trial court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously