Regular bail granted for non-commercial quantity of Ganja where charge-sheet was filed and no NDPS antecedents existed.

The applicants were arrested following a road accident on 15.10.2025 near the Khamharpali RTO Check Post involving a motorcycle.

Police recovered two "pitthu" bags found near the unconscious applicants containing a total of 13.00 kilograms of Ganja (6.5 kg in each bag).

Applicant Vishu Vazwa allegedly admitted ownership in a memorandum statement.

Both were charged under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and Sections 125(a) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Applicants sought regular bail, arguing that the contraband was found in an open area, they lacked exclusive possession, and mandatory procedural provisions were bypassed.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the quantity of contraband seized and their personal circumstances.

2. Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the seizure of 13.00 kilograms of Ganja.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It referred to Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act for the underlying offence and analyzed the "commercial quantity" threshold defined in the NDPS Schedule, which stipulates that for Ganja, a quantity exceeding 20 kg is commercial.

Consequently, the "rigors" of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (which restrict bail for commercial quantities) were found inapplicable to the present seizure of 13.00 kg.

The Court also considered the penal provisions of Sections 125(a) (acts endangering life) and 281 (rash driving) of the BNS.

The Court observed that the 13.00 kg of Ganja recovered from the joint possession of the applicants is significantly less than the 20 kg threshold required to be classified as a "commercial quantity".

Because the quantity was intermediate, the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.

The Court noted that Applicant Yasmin had no criminal antecedents and was caring for an infant child, while Applicant Vishu Vazwa’s sole prior record was under the BNS and not related to drug offences.

Furthermore, since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicants had been in custody since mid-October 2025, the Court reasoned that continued detention was unnecessary for investigation.

It held that the applicants were entitled to release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each.

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory physical presence during key trial stages (opening of case, framing of charges, and Section 351 BNSS statements), and strict compliance with court appearances on penalty of bail cancellation.