Regular bail granted for sub-commercial psychotropic quantity after charge-sheet filing and prolonged pre-trial custody.

On 27 February 2026, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, received secret information that a person at Danganiya Khadan Basti was carrying psychotropic substances for sale. The police conducted a raid, intercepted Aman Yadav, and allegedly seized 19 strips containing 52 Spasmo Proxyvon Plus tablets weighing 92.72 grams.

He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 156/2026 for an offence under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act. The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the substance was not recovered from his exclusive possession, that the quantity was below commercial quantity, that he had remained in custody since 27 February 2026, and that the charge-sheet had been filed. The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had one criminal antecedent.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act where the alleged psychotropic substance was below commercial quantity.

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial justified grant of bail despite the State’s objection regarding one criminal antecedent.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving non-bailable offences.

It considered the prosecution under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act, which concerns punishment for contravention involving psychotropic substances, and treated the fact that the alleged quantity was below commercial quantity as material to the bail determination.

The Court also applied the general bail considerations of the nature of the allegation, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

No statutory bar applicable to commercial-quantity offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was invoked or discussed in the order.

The Court found that the alleged quantity of psychotropic substance was less than commercial quantity, thereby treating the case as one in which the stringent commercial-quantity bail considerations were not attracted.

It further noted that the applicant had been in custody since 27 February 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time. Although the State relied on one criminal antecedent, the Court concluded that, considering the overall circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

Aman Yadav was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to appear before the trial court on each date either personally or through counsel, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and absence, and to remain personally present at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS. A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.