Regular bail granted in below-commercial ganja recovery case on parity with bailed co-accused.

On 14 March 2026, police officials, acting on secret information, intercepted a red-black Hero Passion Pro motorcycle near Gram Rehtikhol, allegedly travelling from Odisha towards Chhattisgarh.

The applicant, Sagar Shuddhodhan Nikalaje, was driving the motorcycle, while co-accused Atul Vinod Nandeshwar was riding pillion.

A black bag containing five packets of ganja, weighing 10.600 kilograms, was allegedly recovered from the motorcycle and seized in accordance with law.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 27/2026 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 20(b)(II)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He contended that the seized quantity was below commercial quantity, that he had remained in custody since 14 March 2026, and that the co-accused, allegedly apprehended from the same vehicle and joint possession, had already been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, pointing out that the applicant had five criminal antecedents, although none related to the NDPS Act, and did not dispute the grant of bail to the co-accused.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 20(b)(II)(B) of the NDPS Act involving 10.600 kilograms of ganja?

2. Whether the quantity of ganja being below commercial quantity, the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were inapplicable to the applicant’s bail application?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity because the co-accused, allegedly apprehended in the same vehicle and from the same joint possession, had already been granted bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

It considered Section 20(b)(II)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, relating to possession of cannabis/ganja involving a quantity greater than small quantity but less than commercial quantity.

The Court proceeded on the principle that the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted where the alleged contraband is below commercial quantity.

It also applied the principle of parity in bail, under which a similarly placed co-accused may ordinarily be granted comparable relief, subject to the individual circumstances of the accused.

The Court found that the alleged recovery of 10.600 kilograms of ganja was below commercial quantity, and therefore the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.

Although the applicant had five criminal antecedents, the Court noted that none involved an offence under the NDPS Act.

The applicant had remained in custody since 14 March 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Importantly, the co-accused, who was apprehended in the same crime and from whose alleged joint possession the contraband was recovered, had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench.

Considering the quantity involved, the period of custody, the absence of prior NDPS cases, and the principle of parity, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The release was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring the applicant to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.