Regular bail granted in NDPS case involving below-commercial quantity where charge-sheet was filed and trial would be prolonged.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 41/2026 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 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, the police seized 5 kg of ganja allegedly kept illegally for sale in a motorcycle at an open place near NH-53, Village Rehatikhol.

The applicants denied involvement, alleged false implication and non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, and submitted that they had no criminal antecedents and had remained in custody since 21 April 2026.

The State opposed bail, submitting that Applicant No. 1 had one antecedent under the Gambling Act and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicants should be released on 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 seizure of 5 kg of ganja.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the quantity of contraband being less than commercial quantity, and the likely delay in trial justified grant of bail despite Applicant No. 1’s criminal antecedent.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered Section 20(b)(II)(B) of the NDPS Act, which concerns possession, sale or other prohibited dealing in cannabis involving a quantity greater than the small quantity but less than the commercial quantity.

Since the seized quantity was less than commercial quantity, the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not treated as applicable.

The Court also applied the general bail principles that continued custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the nature and quantity of the alleged contraband may justify release on bail, subject to safeguards securing the accused’s presence and preventing misuse of liberty.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been submitted, reducing the immediate need for custodial investigation.

The applicants had been in custody since 21 April 2026, and the seized quantity of 5 kg of ganja was below the commercial quantity threshold.

Although Applicant No. 1 had one antecedent under the Gambling Act, the Court considered that circumstance along with the other factors and concluded that it did not outweigh the applicants’ prolonged custody and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to regular bail, while imposing conditions requiring their appearance, cooperation with the trial, and personal presence at key stages of the proceedings.

The applicants were required not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further authorised the trial court to take action in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation proceedings.