Regular bail granted in NDPS case involving ganja below commercial quantity after filing of charge-sheet.

The applicants, Gulaba Bai Mangeshkar and Amit Kumar Khande, were arrested on 24 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 67/2026 registered at Police Station Chilfi, District Mungeli, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, police searched Gulaba Bai’s house in the presence of independent witnesses and recovered 1.849 kilograms of ganja from Gulaba Bai and 1.804 kilograms from Amit Kumar.

The applicants contended that they were innocent, that the alleged contraband was not recovered from their exclusive possession, and that the investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed bail, referring to the gravity of the offence and one criminal antecedent attributed to Applicant No. 1; Applicant No. 2 had no criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which penalises possession, sale, purchase, or transport of cannabis/ganja in contravention of the Act, while taking into account the quantity of the alleged contraband.

The Court treated the fact that the recovered ganja was less than commercial quantity as relevant to the bail determination.

It further applied the general principles governing regular bail, including consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of securing the accused’s presence through appropriate conditions.

The Court considered the alleged recovery of 1.849 kilograms from Applicant No. 1 and 1.804 kilograms from Applicant No. 2 to be less than commercial quantity, thereby treating the stringent commercial-quantity considerations under the NDPS Act as not applicable on the stated facts.

The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for further custodial interrogation.

The applicants had remained in judicial custody since 24 June 2026, and the Court found that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State pointed out one criminal antecedent against Applicant No. 1, the Court, weighing that circumstance against the completed investigation, the non-commercial quantity, and the anticipated delay in trial, held that the applicants had made out a case for bail.

The applicants were restrained from inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case; from acting prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial; and were directed to appear before the trial Court on every date unless their personal presence was exempted.