Regular bail granted under the NDPS Act where recovered contraband was below commercial quantity and trial would be prolonged.

On 19 July 2026, acting on secret information, the police intercepted a black motorcycle bearing registration No. CG11BR4766, allegedly travelling from Odisha towards Kanchanpur, Sariya.

The applicants were travelling on the motorcycle, and 3.065 kilograms of alleged ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicant who was riding as pillion.

A case was registered at Police Station Sariya, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The applicants were arrested on 20 July 2026.

They sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that the recovered quantity was below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet had been filed, they had no criminal antecedents, and the trial would likely take time.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the recovered quantity was below commercial quantity and that the applicants had no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act involving recovery of 3.065 kilograms of alleged ganja?

Whether the quantity of contraband, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely delay in trial justified release on bail?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS to consider the applicants’ prayer for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning possession of cannabis and criminal conspiracy or abetment, respectively.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and quantity of the alleged contraband, whether the quantity was below commercial quantity, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period of custody, their criminal antecedents, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

Since the recovered quantity was below commercial quantity, the Court did not apply the stringent statutory restrictions applicable to offences involving commercial quantity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court found that the alleged recovery of 3.065 kilograms of ganja was below commercial quantity.

It further noted that the applicants had remained in custody since 20 July 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, they had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these circumstances against the State’s objection regarding the manner of commission of the offence, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified at the bail stage.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, it held that the applicants deserved regular bail.

The Court directed that the applicants be released on regular bail upon executing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000 each, with one surety each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

The release was subject to conditions that the applicants would not influence or threaten witnesses, would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and would appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the proceedings.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance.