Filing of charge-sheet and prolonged detention justify bail for intermediate quantity of contraband.

The applicant was arrested on 23.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 1203/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur

Following secret information, police seized 7 kg of contraband ganja from the applicant at an open place

The applicant was implicated based on a memorandum statement and charged under Section 20(B)(II)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing false implication, lack of exclusive possession, and non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s one criminal antecedent and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the quantity of contraband seized and the duration of his incarceration

The court primarily applied Section 20(B)(II)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of intermediate quantities of cannabis

It exercised its discretionary powers for granting regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court also referenced procedural consequences for non-attendance during trial under Section 269 (non-appearance) and Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of the accused's statement

The court observed that the seized quantity of ganja (7 kg) was an intermediate quantity and not a commercial quantity, which impacts the rigors of bail.

The court noted that the investigation was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary.

Although the State raised concerns regarding the applicant's criminal antecedent, the court balanced this against the applicant’s period of detention since 23.11.2025 and the likelihood that the trial would not conclude in the near future.

To ensure the integrity of the judicial process, the court determined that bail could be granted subject to stringent conditions regarding trial attendance and cooperation.

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant’s undertaking not to seek adjournments during witness testimony, and his mandatory presence at key trial stages, including the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.

Failure to comply with these conditions allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Sections 269 or 209 of the BNS.