Prior NDPS antecedents preclude bail despite seizure of intermediate narcotic quantity.

On December 8, 2025, police acting on secret information apprehended the applicant and a co-accused near a motorcycle on Bharewa Road.

Upon search, police recovered 2.057 kg of Ganja from the applicant and 1.920 kg from the co-accused, totaling 3.977 kg.

The applicant was arrested and charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985.

The applicant moved for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that the seized amount was an "intermediate quantity" (below the 20 kg commercial threshold) and that he had been incarcerated since his arrest.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s two prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, when the seized contraband is less than the commercial quantity but the applicant has a history of similar criminal antecedents.

The court primarily considered Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, regarding the penalties for possession of narcotic substances.

It referenced Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which outlines the stringent requirements for bail, noting that while it applies to commercial quantities, intermediate quantities allow for more judicial discretion.

Procedurally, the court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for the grant of regular bail.

The court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which dictates that bail may be denied or cancelled if the accused possesses significant criminal antecedents.

The court acknowledged that the 2.057 kg of Ganja seized from the applicant did not meet the 20 kg threshold required to be classified as a "commercial quantity," thus technically bypassing the strict statutory bars of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution established that the applicant is a "habitual offender" with two prior cases under the NDPS Act, one of which is currently pending.

Integrating the principles from Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court determined that the applicant's history of recidivism under the same Act was a decisive factor.

The court reasoned that despite the quantity being intermediate, the risk to society and the applicant's propensity for repeating the offense rendered him unfit for release on bail.

It held that the existence of prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act justifies the denial of bail even in cases involving intermediate quantities of contraband.

The court directed the office to communicate the order to the concerned trial court for information.