NDPS bail granted upon absence of similar criminal antecedents, subject to antecedent verification

The four petitioners—Shyamsundar Dalei, Krushna Chandra Ranbida, Bibhisan Kumbhar and Shanti Ranbida—filed applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in Bargarh Rural P.S. Case No. 29 of 2026, corresponding to C.T. (Spl.) Case No. 11 of 2026, pending before the District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bargarh.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with co-accused persons, transported 21 kg and 200 grams of ganja on three motorcycles, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The petitioners had been in custody since 9 February 2026; the charge-sheet had been filed, but the trial had not commenced.

During hearing, counsel for the petitioners stated that bail would be withheld if any petitioner was found to have a similar criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the offence involving a commercial quantity of ganja and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the petitioners’ stated absence of similar criminal antecedents, subject to verification, satisfied the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

What conditions should govern the petitioners’ release on bail.

The Court exercised its bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

The alleged possession or transportation of 21 kg and 200 grams of ganja attracted Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which concerns offences involving a commercial quantity of cannabis.

Because Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in such cases, the Court held that the petitioners could be considered to have satisfied those conditions if verification established that they had no criminal antecedent of a similar nature under the NDPS Act.

The Court also accepted the petitioners’ undertaking that the benefit of bail would not extend to any petitioner found to possess such a similar antecedent; however, an acquittal in a criminal case would not be treated as an antecedent.

The Court considered the quantity of contraband alleged, the statutory rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioners’ period of custody from 9 February 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced.

In light of the petitioners’ specific representation that they had no similar NDPS antecedents, coupled with their undertaking to forgo the benefit of bail if such antecedents were discovered, the Court found that they could be treated as satisfying the applicable Section 37 requirements, subject to verification.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court therefore considered bail appropriate.

The order was expressly made subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. If any petitioner was found to have a similar antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act, the benefit of the order would not be extended to that petitioner; an acquittal, however, would not constitute such an antecedent.

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