NDPS bail granted where recovery was below commercial quantity and implication rested solely on a co-accused’s statement.

On 28 May 2026, police received secret information regarding the alleged sale of ganja and apprehended co-accused Brahmanand Patel.

A white plastic bag containing 5.190 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from him and seized.

In his memorandum statement, Brahmanand allegedly stated that he had procured the ganja from the present applicant, Thakurram Patel, for sale.

The applicant was consequently implicated under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and a charge-sheet was filed after investigation.

The applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 3 August 2026; the State also stated that he had remained absconding during investigation and that the charge-sheet was filed showing him as an absconder.

No contraband was recovered from the applicant’s exclusive possession.

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 restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied where 5.190 kg of ganja—less than the notified commercial quantity of 20 kg—was recovered from the co-accused and the applicant was implicated primarily on the basis of the co-accused’s memorandum statement.

Whether the applicant’s alleged abscondence during investigation justified denial of bail after filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which criminalises specified activities involving cannabis.

The Court considered the statutory threshold under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, observing that its stringent bail restrictions are attracted in cases involving commercial quantity; the notified commercial quantity of ganja is 20 kg, whereas 5.190 kg is below that threshold.

The Court also considered the general bail factors of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the stage of proceedings, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the evidentiary circumstance that no contraband was recovered from the applicant and his implication rested principally on the co-accused’s memorandum statement.

The Court held that the alleged recovery of 5.190 kg of ganja from the co-accused was below commercial quantity and, consequently, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted.

The applicant was not alleged to have been found in possession of any contraband, and his implication was substantially based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused.

The Court further relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s alleged abscondence, the Court found that the overall circumstances justified release on bail.

The High Court directed his release in Crime No. 182/2026 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

Release was made subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, along with conditions requiring attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance at specified stages of trial, and compliance with consequences arising from misuse of bail or non-appearance.