Exclusive possession of commercial-quantity contraband triggers Section 37, notwithstanding bail granted to co-accused.

On 24 October 2024, pursuant to information received by the police, 65.565 kg of ganja packed in 64 packets was seized from a Tata DI 207 vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 JB 1697, allegedly from the possession of applicants Beda Bero and Dhanraj Patel.

They were arrested in Crime No. 152/2024 registered at Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, for offences under Sections 20(B)(II)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

They also relied on bail granted to co-accused persons, including Mukesh Tiwari by the Supreme Court and Shatrughan Sahu and Anil Soni by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the contraband had been recovered from the applicants’ exclusive possession and that the case was therefore distinguishable from that of the co-accused.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the recovery of 65.565 kg of ganja, being a commercial quantity, and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the bail granted to the co-accused entitled the present applicants to bail on the principle of parity?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 20(B)(II)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning possession or transportation of commercial-quantity cannabis and criminal conspiracy or abetment.

Since 65.565 kg of ganja was recovered, the quantity was substantially above the prescribed commercial quantity, attracting the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Bail granted to co-accused does not automatically establish parity where the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary circumstances differ.

The Court found that the recovery of 65.565 kg of ganja from the applicants’ exclusive possession disclosed a prima facie case of involvement in the illegal transit of ganja.

Because the recovered quantity was commercial, the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

Although the applicants relied on bail orders in favour of other accused persons, the Court distinguished those cases because the other accused had allegedly been implicated on the basis of the applicants’ memorandum statements, whereas the contraband itself was recovered from the applicants.

Consequently, the applicants could not claim parity with the co-accused, and the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 were not satisfied.

It held that the recovery of commercial-quantity ganja from their exclusive possession established prima facie involvement and attracted the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The bail applications were accordingly rejected.