Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply to intermediate-quantity offences, permitting regular bail on attendant circumstances.

On 22 May 2026, the police, acting on informer information, conducted a raid and allegedly seized 5.121 kg of ganja from the applicant’s possession.

Crime No. 121/2026 was registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and the applicant was arrested on the same day.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He contended that the seized quantity was intermediate and below commercial quantity, that Section 37 of the NDPS Act was therefore inapplicable, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had remained in custody since 22 May 2026.

The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds of recovery from the applicant’s exclusive possession and his four criminal antecedents, including one under the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant, accused of possessing 5.121 kg of ganja under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023?

Whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied where the seized ganja was of intermediate quantity and below commercial quantity?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, concerning possession of cannabis.

It accepted the principle that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply in cases involving commercial quantities and other specified serious offences; where the quantity is intermediate and below commercial quantity, those restrictions do not govern the bail determination in the same manner.

The Court also considered relevant bail factors, including the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The Court noted that the alleged recovery of 5.121 kg of ganja was below commercial quantity and therefore treated the case as one involving intermediate quantity, reducing the applicability of the stringent Section 37 bar.

It further considered that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had been in judicial custody since 22 May 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the applicant had four criminal antecedents, the Court noted that only one was of a similar nature under the NDPS Act and that the applicant had been granted bail in the other pending cases.

Balancing these circumstances, the Court found the applicant entitled to regular bail.

The applicant was directed not to influence or threaten witnesses, not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the determination of bail and would not affect the merits of the trial.