Regular bail granted in NDPS case involving below-commercial quantity, no criminal antecedents, and a filed chargesheet.

On 17 May 2026, acting on secret information, the police seized 10.539 kg of ganja allegedly in the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused persons.

Crime No. 309/2026 was registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and the applicant was arrested on the same date.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He asserted false implication, absence of exclusive possession, non-commercial quantity, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the contraband had been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused persons.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

Whether the nature and quantity of the seized contraband, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated delay in trial justified release on bail.

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) of the NDPS Act, concerning offences relating to cannabis/ganja.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegation, the quantity of contraband, the applicant’s period of incarceration, criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of the trial.

Since the alleged quantity was treated as less than commercial quantity, the stringent restrictions applicable to offences involving commercial quantities were not regarded as an impediment to bail.

The Court noted that 10.539 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and other accused persons, but accepted for bail consideration that the quantity was below commercial quantity.

It further considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 17 May 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the immediate necessity for continued custodial detention.

The Court also took into account that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s objection regarding joint possession, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The applicant, Nitesh Patel (Chadar), was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as required, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for 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.