Regular bail granted where alleged NDPS contraband was below commercial quantity and trial would likely be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 240/2026 registered at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, for an offence under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). On 21 June 2026, acting on secret information, the police allegedly recovered 30 strips of “Pyeevon Spas Tramadol Plus HCL & Acetaminophen Capsules” from the applicant. Each strip contained eight capsules, and each capsule weighed 0.67 grams, resulting in an alleged total weight of 160.8 grams. Following investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent court

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that the quantity attributable to him was below commercial quantity, that the seizure had been improperly clubbed with another alleged recovery, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he had remained in custody since 21 June 2026. The State opposed bail, submitting that the recovered quantity was below commercial quantity but also pointing out that the applicant had one antecedent under the IPC

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in an offence under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, where the alleged contraband quantity was below commercial quantity and the charge-sheet had been filed?

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, completion of investigation, likely delay in trial, and one criminal antecedent justified the grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, and Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, concerning punishment for contravention involving manufactured drugs or preparations in the specified quantity category.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the quantity of the alleged contraband, the applicant’s period of detention, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial as relevant factors in determining entitlement to bail. Since the alleged quantity was treated as below commercial quantity, the stringent commercial-quantity bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applied as a bar to bail.

The Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 21 June 2026, investigation had concluded, and the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the immediate possibility of custodial interference with the investigation.

It further noted that the alleged quantity attributable to the applicant was below commercial quantity, while the applicant’s contention regarding clubbing of recoveries raised an issue requiring consideration at trial. Although the applicant had one IPC antecedent, the Court considered this factor along with the overall circumstances and concluded that the trial was likely to take considerable time. On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicant deserved to be released on bail.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain represented or present on each date of hearing, to appear in person at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed in case of absence or misuse of bail.