NDPS bail may be granted where recovery from an accessible area does not reliably link the accused to the contraband.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

Police alleged that 42 kg 476 g of ganja was recovered from behind his house.

The petitioner, who had a 100% disability and both legs amputated below the knees, argued that the recovery site was an open area accessible to others and that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession.

The State opposed bail, relying on the quantity seized and the petitioner’s alleged confession.

The charge sheet was filed on 4 October 2026; the application was heard on 7 October and decided on 8 October 2026.

1. Whether the petitioner could be granted bail despite the restrictions in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, given the alleged commercial quantity of ganja.

2. Whether the case materials provided reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged offence and was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the bail application.

Under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, bail for an offence involving commercial quantity may be granted only after the Public Prosecutor has an opportunity to oppose it and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail; these conditions are cumulative and additional to ordinary bail requirements.

“Reasonable grounds” require more than a prima facie basis, but the bail court need not make a final finding of acquittal: Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798; Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624; State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122.

The commercial quantity for ganja is 20 kg; the alleged seizure therefore attracted Section 37.

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, and the alleged seizure exceeded the commercial-quantity threshold, so the Section 37 conditions applied.

In assessing whether those conditions were met, the Court noted that the recovery site was about 30 metres from the petitioner’s house and closer to several other houses and cultivated land; the case diary contained no local-witness statements attributing the growing, procuring, or storing of ganja to him; and the petitioner had a certified 100% disability.

The charge sheet had been filed, and there was no allegation of similar NDPS or excise antecedents.

On those materials, the Court found reasonable grounds for the limited purpose of bail to believe that the petitioner was not shown to have committed the offence and was not likely to commit a similar offence while on bail.

Conditions included that he not commit a similar offence or threaten or influence prosecution witnesses; breach could lead to cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and were not an expression on the merits of the prosecution case.