Regular bail granted for non-commercial NDPS quantity after prolonged custody and filing of the charge-sheet.

On 29 December 2025, acting on secret information, the police allegedly seized 1.977 kg of ganja from the applicant, Shiva Netam @ Baban, and registered Crime No. 618/2025 at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

The applicant was arrested on the same date and remained in custody. His first bail application was dismissed on merits on 30 April 2026.

In the present second bail application, he contended that the seized quantity was less than commercial quantity, that he had been acquitted in most of his criminal antecedents, including an earlier prosecution under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had 19 criminal antecedents and was a habitual offender.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act involving 1.977 kg of ganja.

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and alleged status as a habitual offender warranted denial of bail despite the contraband being less than commercial quantity, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in trial.

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

Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which penalises offences relating to cannabis.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegation, the quantity of contraband, the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of trial, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

Since the quantity was found to be less than commercial quantity, the stringent commercial-quantity bail considerations were not treated as determinative.

The Court found that the alleged quantity of 1.977 kg of ganja was less than commercial quantity.

It also considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 29 December 2025, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State relied on 19 criminal antecedents, the Court gave weight to the applicant’s submission that he had been acquitted in most of those cases, including an earlier case under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

Balancing these factors, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or proclamation, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.