Refusal of bail for transport of commercial quantity of Ganja found in concealed vehicle chamber.

The applicants, Shahrukh Khan and Akash Kosare, were intercepted by the Mahasamund police on 17.06.2025 while traveling in a Tata DI vehicle (CG-04-ML-2991).

Upon searching the vehicle, police discovered 110 kg of Ganja concealed in a special chamber beneath the rear trolley.

The applicants were arrested and charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Following the filing of the charge-sheet on 21.11.2025, the applicants moved the High Court for regular bail, contending false implication, lack of exclusive possession, and prolonged incarceration.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the power to grant bail.

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which stipulates stringent penalties and restricted bail conditions for possession of commercial quantities of contraband.

The principle of "conscious possession" in cases of organized crime involving specially modified vehicles for smuggling.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense, noting that the seized quantity (110 kg of Ganja) significantly exceeds the threshold for "commercial quantity".

Although the defense argued that the investigation was complete and the applicants had no "exclusive possession," the Court found that the contraband was recovered from a "joint and conscious possession" within a vehicle specifically modified with a concealed chamber.

The Court observed that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the presence of the contraband. Consequently, the High Court determined that the nature of the organized crime and the substantial recovery outweighed the personal circumstances of the applicants (such as family dependency or young age).

It held that because the recovery involved a commercial quantity of narcotics in an organized manner, it was not a fit case for release on bail; the Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.