Regular bail granted in NDPS case involving less-than-commercial quantity, no antecedents, and completed investigation.

On 15 June 2026, the police, acting on secret information, conducted a raid and allegedly recovered 3.837 kg of ganja from the possession of Rama Shankar Verma.

Crime No. 339/2026 was registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The applicant was arrested on 16 June 2026 and filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He contended that the quantity recovered was less than commercial quantity, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he had been falsely implicated.

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the applicant, accused of possessing 3.837 kg of ganja under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, period of custody, and likely delay in conclusion of trial justified the grant of bail.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The alleged offence was under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, relating to possession of cannabis/ganja.

In determining bail, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the quantity allegedly seized, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of incarceration, and the likely duration of the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court noted that 3.837 kg of ganja had allegedly been recovered, which was stated to be less than commercial quantity, and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

The charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial detention for investigation.

Considering that the applicant had remained in custody since 16 June 2026 and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take time, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

The Court accordingly balanced the seriousness of the NDPS allegation against the individual circumstances supporting release and imposed conditions designed to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent misuse of bail.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from any proclamation, and to appear personally at the stages of 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 sent to the trial court for compliance.