Regular Bail Granted for Intermediate Quantity of Ganja Absent Prior NDPS Criminal Antecedents

The applicant was arrested on 25.01.2026 following a police search at Chhipiyapara, Mahasamund, where officers allegedly seized 9.640 kg of contraband ganja from a plastic sack in his possession

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending false implication, non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding search warrants, and highlighting that the seized amount was an intermediate quantity

The state opposed the bail, noting that a charge sheet had already been filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the quantity of the seized contraband and his criminal antecedents

The Court applied Section 20-B(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of intermediate quantities of cannabis

It further considered the "rigors of Section 37" of the NDPS Act, noting that these strict bail conditions apply primarily to "commercial quantities" (defined as exceeding 20 kg for ganja) rather than intermediate quantities

Procedurally, the Court operated under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for the grant of regular bail, and referenced Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding conditions for bail and consequences of non-appearance

The Court observed that the seized 9.640 kg of Ganja falls below the statutory threshold of 20 kg for a "commercial quantity," thereby rendering the restrictive bail provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable

Although the applicant had three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, the Court emphasized that he had no prior record under the NDPS Act specifically

The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, continued incarceration was not warranted

The Court balanced the liberty of the applicant against the state's interest by imposing strict conditions, including personal bonds and mandatory attendance at trial proceedings

The holding established that intermediate quantity seizures coupled with a lack of NDPS-specific antecedents favor the grant of bail pending trial. The Court ordered the applicant's release on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every hearing, and must specifically be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements

Default in these conditions grants the trial court liberty to treat it as an abuse of bail