Regular bail granted for non-commercial ganja quantity despite one prior NDPS antecedent.

The applicants filed their first applications for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 81/2026 registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Acting on informer information, the police searched an XUV vehicle and a Dzire car and allegedly seized 12.563 kg of ganja from the possession of the applicants and a co-accused.

The applicants contended that the contraband had been recovered from an open place and not from their possession, that the quantity was below commercial quantity, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that trial would take time.

They also relied on the grant of bail to a co-accused.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the contraband had been recovered from the applicants’ possession and that each applicant had one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act.

The applicants had remained in custody since 26 April 2026, and charge-sheets had been filed before the competent court.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an NDPS case involving 12.563 kg of ganja allegedly recovered from their possession?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the quantity being below commercial quantity, the applicants’ period of custody, and the anticipated delay in trial justified release on bail despite their criminal antecedents?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which penalises possession, sale, purchase, transport, or other dealings in cannabis, with the severity of punishment depending, inter alia, on the quantity involved.

The Court treated the seized quantity of 12.563 kg of ganja as less than commercial quantity and therefore did not apply the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

It also considered the settled bail principles relating to the filing of the charge-sheet, the length of custody, the likely duration of trial, and the possibility of securing the accused’s presence through appropriate conditions.

The Court found that the alleged recovery was 12.563 kg of ganja, which was below commercial quantity.

Although the applicants disputed possession and each had one NDPS-related criminal antecedent, the Court considered that the charge-sheets had already been filed, the applicants had been in custody since 26 April 2026, and the conclusion of trial was likely to take time.

Balancing these circumstances against the prosecution’s allegations, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicants could be released subject to conditions designed to ensure their attendance and prevent misuse of bail.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicants not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from any proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.