Regular bail warranted where ganja quantity is below commercial threshold, chargesheet is filed, and trial may be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 146/2026 registered at Police Station Sarswati Nagar, Raipur, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). Acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 2.162 kilograms of ganja from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant asserted false implication, relied on the quantity being below commercial quantity, and submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed, that he had been in custody since 8 July 2026, and that trial would take considerable time. He had one pending criminal antecedent under the IPC and the Arms Act.

The State opposed bail, while confirming the filing of the charge-sheet, the quantity seized, and the applicant’s antecedent.

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

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 seizure of 2.162 kilograms of ganja?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, the quantity being below commercial quantity, and the anticipated delay in trial justified grant of bail despite his pending criminal antecedent?

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 penalises offences relating to cannabis/ganja.

The Court treated the quantity of contraband as material to the bail determination and relied on the fact that the alleged recovery was below commercial quantity, thereby not attracting 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 2.162 kilograms of ganja was below commercial quantity.

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 8 July 2026, and the trial was likely to take time, continued detention was not considered necessary at that stage.

Although the applicant had one pending antecedent under the IPC and Arms Act, the Court concluded that this factor did not outweigh the circumstances favouring release on bail.

Accordingly, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The applicant, Harish Sendre, 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 concerned trial court.

The release 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 order further authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.