Regular bail granted for possession of psychotropic substance involving less than commercial quantity and no prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on 18.09.2025 in connection with Crime No. 407/2025 at P.S. Bodhghat for allegedly possessing 312 Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules, totaling 54.6 grams.

The prosecution alleged the substance was recovered based on secret informant information.

The applicant filed this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending he was falsely implicated, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the quantity seized was less than "commercial quantity".

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the recovery and his lack of criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

It further applied Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which pertains to punishments for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations involving a quantity "less than commercial but greater than small quantity".

The Court also referenced procedural compliance under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding the consequences of violating bail conditions.

The Court observed that the seized quantity of psychotropic substance (54.6 grams of Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules) was undisputedly less than the commercial quantity defined under the NDPS Act.

The Court evaluated the applicant’s custody period (since 18.09.2025) against the expected duration of the trial, noting that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Finding that the applicant had no prior criminal record and that the State failed to demonstrate a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing justice, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant's strict adherence to trial schedules without seeking unnecessary adjournments, and his personal presence during key trial stages such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.

Failure to comply would empower the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.