Joint possession of contraband exceeding commercial quantity precludes bail despite claims of separate recoveries.

The applicant, Hakim Khan, was arrested on January 10, 2026, following a police raid on January 9 near Dhan Mandi, village Selud.

The police apprehended three individuals on a motorcycle and recovered a total of 263.68 grams of prohibited narcotic tablets: 30.72 grams from co-accused Triloki Yadav and 232.96 grams from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Cheman Vishwakarma.

Consequently, Crime No. 11/2026 was registered under the NDPS Act.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contending that the seizure of contraband from different individuals should not be clubbed to meet the "commercial quantity" threshold and that mandatory procedural provisions were bypassed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the quantity of narcotics seized and the rejection of a co-accused's bail application.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power to grant bail.

Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which regulate the possession of psychotropic substances.

The legal significance of "commercial quantity" under the NDPS Act notifications and the principle of parity—specifically noting the prior rejection of a co-accused’s bail under similar circumstances.

The Court evaluated the recovery of 263.68 grams of narcotic tablets, determining that the amount exceeded the "commercial quantity" threshold as defined under the NDPS Act.

The Court implicitly rejected the applicant's argument that separate seizure memos necessitated separate treatment of the quantities, prioritizing the total recovery from the joint apprehension.

The Court noted that a co-accused, Mohammed Kaish, had already been denied bail by the same Court in MCRC No. 3608/2026 on April 21, 2026.

Given the gravity of the offense and the commercial nature of the seizure, the Court found no merit in the applicant's plea for release despite the charge sheet being filed.

The Court held that the significant quantity of contraband (exceeding commercial limits) and the previous rejection of the co-accused’s bail rendered the applicant ineligible for relief.

The trial Court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.