Section 37 NDPS Act rigors are inapplicable to intermediate quantities; bail is permissible absent criminal antecedents.

On January 31, 2026, police officials at Police Station Bande, acting on a secret tip, intercepted the applicant who was traveling from Maharashtra on a motorcycle.

Upon searching the applicant at PV 98, Dayanagar, the police seized 2.050 kg of contraband ganja allegedly intended for sale.

The applicant was arrested the same day. Following the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offenses under Section 20-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The applicant subsequently moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given the quantity of contraband seized and the stage of the trial.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

Section 20-B of the NDPS Act, 1985, which penalizes the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import, export, or use of cannabis.

The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restrict bail in cases involving "commercial quantities," are not applicable when the seized substance is of an "intermediate quantity"—defined as more than a small quantity but less than the 20 kg threshold for ganja.

The Court analyzed the application by balancing the nature of the offense against the applicant's profile and procedural status.

It noted that the 2.050 kg of ganja seized was an intermediate quantity, thus exempting the applicant from the strict bail requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court emphasized that the applicant had no prior criminal record under the NDPS Act, a fact endorsed by the State’s counsel.

The Court observed that since the charge sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in custody since January 31, 2026, the likely duration of the trial justified his release.

The Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure his participation in the trial.

The holding was based on the recovered quantity being less than commercial and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court imposed several conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory appearance on all trial dates under penalty of Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); and (iii) specific personal appearances for charge framing and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.