Regular bail granted where seized ganja was below commercial quantity and trial was likely to be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 69/2026 registered at Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar, for an offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

On the basis of secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 4.309 kilograms of ganja, valued at ₹2,01,630, from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant denied possession, alleged false implication, and contended that Section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with.

He also submitted that he had no antecedents under the NDPS Act, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had remained in custody since 11 May 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged recovery and pointing out one previous case under the Juva Act from 2007.

This was the applicant’s first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, and Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act, which concerns possession, sale, purchase, or transportation of cannabis in a quantity greater than small but less than commercial quantity.

The Court treated the fact that the alleged 4.309 kilograms of ganja was below commercial quantity as a relevant circumstance in assessing bail.

It also considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the likely delay in conclusion of trial, and the absence of prior NDPS offences as relevant bail considerations.

The Court did not determine the applicant’s disputed contention regarding compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act at the bail stage.

The Court considered the case diary and weighed the alleged recovery against the circumstances favouring release.

Although the prosecution alleged possession of 4.309 kilograms of ganja, the Court noted that the quantity was less than commercial quantity, thereby making the stringent commercial-quantity bail considerations inapplicable.

The charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial investigation; the applicant had been in custody since 11 May 2026; and the trial was likely to take time.

The Court further noted that the applicant had no previous NDPS case and that the only antecedent cited by the State was a 2007 case under the Juva Act.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

The Court directed that Mahadev Baghel be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek 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 Court also directed transmission of a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court for compliance.