NDPS Act’s Section 37 embargo is inapplicable below commercial quantity, warranting bail absent recovery from the applicant.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 94/2026 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

On 22 April 2026, acting on secret information, the police searched the residential premises of co-accused Mohd. Arif and allegedly recovered 4.916 kilograms of ganja concealed beneath a cot.

The applicant was implicated principally on the basis of the alleged memorandum statements of the co-accused and the applicant, according to which the applicant had supplied the contraband to the co-accused and visited him to collect sale proceeds.

No contraband was recovered from the applicant. The applicant had been in custody since 22 April 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had one pending criminal antecedent under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite his implication in an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act?

Whether the alleged recovery of 4.916 kilograms of ganja and the memorandum statements of the co-accused and applicant were sufficient, at the bail stage, to justify continued custody?

Whether the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were attracted to the alleged quantity of contraband?

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

The alleged offence was under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

The Court accepted the submission that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted where the alleged quantity is below the notified commercial quantity; the notified commercial quantity for ganja was stated to be 20 kilograms, whereas the alleged recovery was 4.916 kilograms.

The Court also considered the principle that a memorandum or disclosure statement made during investigation has limited evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot, by itself and without consequential recovery, constitute substantive evidence of guilt.

The alleged recovery was made from the premises of the co-accused and not from the applicant’s conscious or exclusive possession.

The prosecution’s case against the applicant was primarily founded on memorandum statements, with no recovery from him or other independent incriminating material identified at the bail stage.

Since the alleged quantity of 4.916 kilograms was below the commercial quantity of 20 kilograms, the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was held not to apply.

Weighing these circumstances with the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 22 April 2026, his single pending criminal antecedent, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial, the Court found that continued incarceration was not warranted.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain represented or present on every date of hearing, to comply with proceedings in the event of non-appearance or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.