Regular bail granted where seized ganja quantity was below the commercial threshold.

On 14 May 2026, Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar, allegedly searched the applicant pursuant to confidential information and recovered 12.310 kg of ganja from his possession.

An FIR was registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and the applicant was arrested the same day. Following investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the competent court.

The applicant, aged approximately 20 years, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, asserting false implication, non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, absence of criminal antecedents, seizure of less than commercial quantity, and prolonged incarceration pending trial.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offence, while acknowledging that the seized quantity was less than commercial quantity and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 12.310 kg of ganja?

2. Whether the alleged quantity, being less than the notified commercial quantity of 20 kg, attracted the stringent restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

3. Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and anticipated delay in trial justified grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which criminalises possession of cannabis in contravention of the Act.

The Court considered the principle that the heightened bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to offences involving commercial quantity; the notified commercial quantity of ganja was treated as 20 kg, and the alleged recovery of 12.310 kg was therefore below that threshold.

The Court also considered the general bail factors of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the stage of proceedings, filing of the charge-sheet, length of custody, likelihood of delay in trial, and the accused’s criminal antecedents.

The Court noted that the alleged recovery of 12.310 kg of ganja was below the commercial quantity of 20 kg and, consequently, the stringent limitations associated with Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted in the same manner as they would be for a commercial-quantity offence.

Although the prosecution alleged possession of contraband and opposed bail on the ground of seriousness, the Court gave weight to the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Having considered the case diary, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the quantity allegedly recovered, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

The applicant, Suresh Meghwal, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order also authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to proclamation.