Intermediate-quantity NDPS offences carry no statutory bar to bail consideration.

The petitioners—Sajil Sanu, Justin Pappacha @ Pappachan, and Ambadi Soman—sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in G. Udayagiri P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 100 of 2026, pending before the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balliguda, Kandhamal.

They were prosecuted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the allegation of possessing 13 kg 100 grams of contraband ganja along with co-accused persons.

The petitioners had previous criminal cases, principally under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, and, in the case of Sajil Sanu and Justin Pappacha, one case under Section 20(b)(ii)(A).

They had been in custody since 22 February 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed by the time of consideration of the bail applications.

1. Whether the petitioners should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the allegation of possession of 13 kg 100 grams of ganja punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioners’ previous criminal cases constituted a sufficient ground to deny bail, particularly when those cases predominantly involved small-quantity offences or alleged consumption of narcotic drugs.

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

The alleged offence fell under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, for which the Court noted a punishment of imprisonment up to ten years and fine up to Rs.1 lakh.

The Court held that there is no statutory bar to considering bail in an NDPS case involving an intermediate quantity, unlike cases attracting the stringent statutory restrictions applicable to commercial quantities.

It also applied the presumption of innocence, the nature of the alleged offences, the maximum punishment, the period of pre-trial detention, and the filing of the charge-sheet as relevant bail considerations.

The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ criminal antecedents but found that the previous cases were primarily under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act and related to small quantities or alleged consumption, carrying a maximum punishment of six months; only Sajil Sanu and Justin Pappacha had one prior case under Section 20(b)(ii)(A).

Although the present allegation concerned an intermediate quantity of ganja, the Court observed that no statutory bar prevented consideration of bail.

Balancing the presumption of innocence, the prescribed punishment, the petitioners’ custody since 22 February 2026, and the filing of the charge-sheet, the Court concluded that the petitioners could be released on bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The specific condition imposed was that the petitioners must not indulge in similar activities.

The applications were accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.