Parity and absence of criminal antecedents warrant regular bail for intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act.

On January 18, 2026, acting on secret information, the Ratanpur Police conducted a raid on Jali–Nevrasa Road.

During the search, 14.336 kg of Ganja, valued at ₹1,40,000, was recovered from the possession of co-accused Kushal Nirmalkar.

A motorcycle (Reg. No. CG-10-CA-1723) allegedly used in the commission of the offense was seized from the applicant, Ashish Kumar.

Based on memorandum statements alleging a conspiracy to transport narcotics, the applicant was arrested on January 30, 2026, for offenses under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant moved for regular bail following the filing of the charge-sheet, citing a lack of criminal antecedents and the fact that the contraband was not recovered from his direct possession.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the quantity of the seized contraband and his role in the alleged offense.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail.

Substantively, the case involved Sections 20(b) (punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis) and 29 (punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Court also considered the legal significance of "commercial quantity" thresholds under the NDPS Act and the principle of parity in bail matters.

The Court observed that the seized quantity of Ganja (14.336 kg) was less than the "commercial quantity" (20 kg) defined under the NDPS Act, which reduces the stringency of bail restrictions.

While the State opposed bail on the grounds of "joint possession," the Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record.

Significantly, the Court applied the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused, Jaikishan Sut @ Deepak Sarthi, had already been granted bail in MCRC No. 2693 of 2026.

The Court further reasoned that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in custody since January 30, 2026, the continued detention was unnecessary as the trial was expected to be prolonged.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory appearance on all trial dates; and (iii) personal appearance during key trial stages like the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.

The Court warned that any violation of these conditions would allow the trial court to treat it as an abuse of the liberty of bail.