Regular bail granted where contraband was recovered from a co-accused and was below commercial quantity.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 86/2026 registered at Police Station Urla, Raipur, for an alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Acting on informer information, the police intercepted co-accused Summet Verma and seized 3.115 kg of ganja from his possession.

The co-accused allegedly implicated the applicant in his memorandum statement, pursuant to which the applicant was arrested on 31 May 2026.

The applicant contended that no contraband was recovered from him, the seized quantity was below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had been in custody since 31 May 2026.

Although he had six previous IPC-related criminal antecedents, he had been granted bail in those cases.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seizure from the co-accused and the applicant’s antecedents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail where the contraband was recovered from the co-accused, the applicant was implicated principally through the co-accused’s memorandum statement, and the seized quantity was below commercial quantity?

Whether the applicant’s six criminal antecedents, together with the nature of the alleged NDPS offence, justified denial of bail despite filing of the charge-sheet and the applicant’s period of custody?

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail.

Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act applies to offences involving possession, sale, purchase, or transportation of cannabis, with the quantity of contraband being relevant to the applicable bail considerations.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the prima facie nature of the material against the applicant, the fact that recovery was not made from his possession, the quantity being below commercial quantity, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely time required for trial, and the applicant’s antecedents and bail status in the earlier cases.

The Court found that 3.115 kg of ganja had been recovered from the co-accused and not from the applicant, and that the applicant had been implicated primarily on the basis of the co-accused’s memorandum statement.

The quantity was below commercial quantity, thereby weighing in favour of consideration of bail.

Although the applicant had six criminal antecedents, the Court noted that he had already been enlarged on bail in those matters.

Since the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 31 May 2026, and the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted at the bail stage.

The High Court directed his release upon execution of a personal bond of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was granted subject to conditions that the applicant make himself available for interrogation when required, refrain from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the facts of the case, and avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.