Grant of bail for intermediate quantity of contraband where rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply.

The applicant, Sushila Bai, was arrested on 14.08.2025 at Raigarh Railway Station following a police raid based on informant tips.

The police recovered 12 kg of Ganja (cannabis) from her possession, leading to her being charged under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The applicant filed this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending she was falsely implicated and noting that the quantity seized was "intermediate" rather than "commercial".

She has been in custody since her arrest, and the charge-sheet has been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the quantity of contraband seized and the duration of her pre-trial detention?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding bail provisions, and Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act concerning the possession of Ganja.

It applied the threshold established in the NDPS Schedule, which defines "commercial quantity" for Ganja as exceeding 20 kg.

Consequently, since the seizure (12 kg) was below this threshold, the court determined that the stringent "rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act"—which impose a higher burden for granting bail—did not apply to this case.

The Court reasoned that because the 12 kg of Ganja recovered was less than the 20 kg commercial threshold, the mandatory restrictions against bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not triggered.

While the State opposed the bail citing two prior criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, the Court balanced this against the fact that the investigation was complete with a filed charge-sheet and that the trial would inevitably take a significant amount of time.

The Hon’ble Chief Justice concluded that since the applicant had been in jail since August 2025 and the quantity was intermediate, her continued incarceration was not warranted pending trial.

The holding was subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every hearing (unless excused), and must comply with Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding attendance and consequences of non-appearance.

Additionally, the trial court was directed to endeavor to conclude the trial within six months.