Facts
The applicant was arrested on January 23, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 11/2026
Source reference: para. 1On January 22, 2026, police intercepted a vehicle and seized 36 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus (288 capsules)
Source reference: para. 2Out of the total seizure, 6 strips containing 14.4 grams of Tramadol were recovered directly from the applicant, with the remaining 30 strips recovered from a co-accused
Source reference: para. 2, 4The applicant was charged under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act
Source reference: para. 1The applicant moved this First Bail Application, contending that the seized amount was less than "commercial quantity," he had no criminal antecedents, and the trial would be prolonged
Source reference: para. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the quantity of the seized psychotropic substance and his period of incarceration.
Source reference: para. 1, 7Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail
Source reference: para. 1Sections 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which govern the punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and criminal conspiracy
Source reference: para. 1Procedural requirements for personal appearance and conduct under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS
Source reference: para. 8Reasoning
While the total seizure was 288 capsules, the specific recovery from the applicant was 6 strips amounting to 14.4 grams of the prohibited substance
Source reference: para. 4As per the Drug Inspector’s Report and the personal affidavit filed by the Director General of Police, this quantity was determined to be less than the "commercial quantity" defined under the NDPS Act
Source reference: para. 5The Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the applicant had been in custody since January 23, 2026
Source reference: para. 7Given that the applicant had no prior criminal record and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, the Court found the nexus between the facts and the legal requirements for bail favored the applicant’s release
Source reference: para. 7Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that because the recovered quantity was intermediate (less than commercial) and the investigation was complete, the applicant was entitled to bail
The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond with two sureties
Source reference: para. 8Original Court PDF
SUNIL BEHRAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in