NDPS commercial quantity cases; long incarceration alone insufficient for bail.

The applicant, Anurag Pal, filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning Crime No. 31/2025.

The case involved the recovery of 23.214 kg of Ganja, valued at Rs. 2,32,140/-, from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused, Vikas Pal, near RTO Naka on NH-63 on February 10, 2025.

They were arrested on the same day.

The offences are punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The charge-sheet was filed on July 31, 2025, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since the date of arrest.

Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far.

Whether the applicant, Anurag Pal, should be granted regular bail in a case involving the seizure of commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which deals with offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Vigin K. Varghese (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos.7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025), decided on November 13, 2025, which held that long incarceration alone cannot be a ground for bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases.

The court noted that the seized quantity of contraband Ganja (23.214 kg) was significantly more than the commercial quantity.

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the possession of the contraband.

Despite the applicant's incarceration since February 10, 2025, and the fact that only one out of thirteen witnesses had been examined, the court, referencing Union of India (UOI) Vs. Vigin K. Varghese, determined that long incarceration itself is not a sufficient ground for bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases.

Given the scale of the seizure and the lack of a satisfactory explanation, the court did not find sufficient grounds to believe the applicant was falsely implicated.

The court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of the order, provided there is no legal impediment.