Grant of bail for possession of intermediate quantity of Ganja where no prior criminal antecedents exist.

The applicants, Mithun Netam and Yogesh Kumar Thakur, were arrested on January 1, 2026, following a police raid based on secret information.

The prosecution alleged that 09 Kgs of Ganja was seized from the joint possession of the applicants, leading to the registration of Crime No. 01/2026 under the NDPS Act.

The applicants moved for regular bail, contending they were falsely implicated, that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with, and emphasizing their lack of previous criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the bail on the grounds of the quantity of the seized contraband and the filing of the charge-sheet.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the seizure and the duration of their incarceration.

Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession and trafficking of cannabis.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court’s power to grant bail.

Procedural compliance for trial presence under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of accused statement) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS respectively.

The Court evaluated the entitlement to bail by balancing the gravity of the offense against the personal liberty of the applicants. It specifically noted that the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, which served to mitigate the severity of the allegations.

The Court observed that the investigation had reached a significant milestone with the filing of the charge-sheet before the competent court.

Given that the applicants had been in custody since January 1, 2026, and acknowledging that the trial's conclusion would likely be delayed, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was not warranted.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicants' strict adherence to trial schedules, prohibition from seeking unnecessary adjournments, and mandatory presence during key trial stages (framing of charges and recording of statements), under threat of proceedings for abuse of liberty under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.