Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply to seizures below commercial quantity.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2026 registered at Police Station Nagarnaar, District Bastar, for an offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Acting on secret information, the police allegedly seized 18.085 kilograms of ganja from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant contended that he was innocent, had been falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

He further argued that the quantity seized was less than the prescribed commercial quantity of 20 kilograms and, therefore, the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted.

The applicant had remained in custody since 7 June 2026 and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act involving seizure of 18.085 kilograms of ganja.

Whether the bar and stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied when the seized quantity was below the prescribed commercial quantity of 20 kilograms.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, under which the alleged offence was registered.

The Court proceeded on the principle that the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in cases involving commercial quantity; where the quantity recovered is below the prescribed commercial quantity, those restrictions do not operate in the same manner.

The Court also considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial as relevant bail considerations.

The Court noted that 18.085 kilograms of ganja had allegedly been recovered, which was below the commercial quantity of 20 kilograms.

It therefore accepted the applicant’s contention that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted.

The Court additionally relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 7 June 2026, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take some time to conclude.

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

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or misuse of bail, 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.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for information and compliance.