Regular bail granted in an NDPS case after charge-sheet filing and prolonged custody.

The applicants—Madan Tandi, Shanti Tandi, and Harishchand Tandi—were arrested in connection with Crime No. 108/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 12.750 kg of ganja from the possession of the applicants.

The applicants denied exclusive possession and alleged false implication.

Madan Tandi was stated to have one previously disposed-of case under the Gambling Act, Shanti Tandi had no criminal antecedent, and Harishchand Tandi had one antecedent under Sections 294 and 506 IPC relating to 2022.

The applicants had been in custody since 23.07.2026 and 29.07.2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act involving the alleged seizure of 12.750 kg of ganja.

2. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period of custody, their criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified release on bail despite the State’s apprehension that they might abscond.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, prescribing punishment for specified offences involving cannabis/ganja.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, and the likely duration of the trial.

Bail was made subject to conditions intended to secure cooperation with investigation, prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and preserve the fairness and expeditiousness of the trial.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that 12.750 kg of ganja had been seized from the applicants but considered the applicants’ contention that the contraband was not recovered from their exclusive possession.

It found that Madan Tandi and Shanti Tandi had no live criminal antecedents, while Harishchand Tandi’s only relevant antecedent was a 2022 case under Sections 294 and 506 IPC.

The filing of the charge-sheet reduced the need for continued custodial detention, and the applicants had already spent a substantial period in custody.

Since the trial was likely to take further time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted, notwithstanding the State’s apprehension of absconding.

Bail was subject to the conditions that they appear for police interrogation when required, refrain from inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and do nothing prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail applications and would not affect the trial court’s independent determination on merits.