Rejection of bail for possession of commercial quantity of contraband despite alleged non-support by witnesses.

The applicant was arrested on February 15, 2025, following a police raid on a Mahindra car near village Kudhurtal.

The search of the vehicle led to the recovery of 86.250 kg of ganja (cannabis) distributed in 86 packets, valued at ₹8,50,000/-.

The applicant was found in the car alongside a co-accused.

A charge-sheet was subsequently filed under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending false implication, the lack of prima facie evidence, and seeking parity with a co-accused who was previously granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband and the rejection of bail for other co-accused persons?

Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, and transport of cannabis.

Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) for grant of regular bail.

In cases involving "commercial quantities" under the NDPS Act, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty before granting bail.

The Court noted that the quantity of contraband recovered (86.250 kg) qualifies as a commercial quantity.

The Court observed that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the possession of the 28 packets of ganja found in the vehicle.

Despite the applicant’s argument that witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, the Court highlighted that the bail applications of three other co-accused persons (Arun Kumar Khunte and others) had already been rejected in 2025 and 2026.

Given the severity of the recovery and the criminal antecedents of the applicant mentioned in the application, the Court found no grounds to support the plea of false implication at this stage.

The Court held that it was not a fit case to release the applicant on bail due to the commercial quantity of the contraband and the absence of a valid defense against the seizure.

The trial court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.