Recovery of less than commercial quantity of narcotics warrants bail in absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicants, Ku. Taruna Singh Rajput and Litesh Singh Thakur, were arrested on January 14, 2026, after being intercepted by police while traveling on a motorcycle near Village Bhoina

Following a tip-off, police conducted a search and seized 12.538 kg of contraband ganja from their possession

They were charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

The applicants filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that they were falsely implicated, the investigation (charge-sheet) was complete, and they had no prior criminal record

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the quantity of the seized contraband and the duration of their incarceration

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court’s power to grant bail.

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which addresses the possession of "intermediate" quantities of cannabis—quantities greater than small but less than commercial

procedural safeguards and penalties for bail default under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court’s reasoning centered on the classification of the seized drug and the applicants' history. It noted that the 12.538 kg of ganja recovered from the joint possession of the applicants is strictly less than the "commercial quantity" (20 kg), thereby exempting the applicants from the more stringent bail restrictions typically found under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, indicating that the investigation was complete

Furthermore, the State’s counsel conceded that the applicants had no previous criminal antecedents

Considering the applicants had been in custody since January 14, 2026, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court found no justification for continued pre-trial detention

The holding is contingent upon strict conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory personal or legal representation at all trial dates under penalty of Section 269 BNS; and (iii) personal appearance during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.

Any misuse of liberty or failure to appear may trigger proclamation proceedings under Section 84 BNSS and prosecution under Section 209 BNS