Section 37 NDPS Act rigors are inapplicable to intermediate quantity seizures, justifying grant of regular bail.

On October 10, 2025, police received confidential information regarding the transportation of narcotic substances on a bus traveling toward Banaras.

Upon intercepting the vehicle, police identified the applicant, Nitish Chandra, and a co-accused.

A search of their respective bags revealed 2.100 kg of ganja each, totaling 4.200 kg.

The applicant was arrested on the same day and charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed while the applicant remained in judicial custody.

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

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the quantity of the seized contraband and the duration of his pretrial detention.

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

Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which impose strict conditions for bail—are not attracted in cases involving an intermediate quantity of contraband (for Ganja, this is any amount between 1 kg and 20 kg), as opposed to a commercial quantity (exceeding 20 kg).

The court evaluated the merits of the bail application by contrasting the seized amount against statutory thresholds.

It noted that the total recovery of 4.200 kg of ganja from the joint possession of the accused persons constitutes an intermediate quantity, thereby rendering the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable.

The court took judicial notice of the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had been incarcerated since October 10, 2025.

Furthermore, since the charge-sheet had already been filed, the court reasoned that the applicant's continued detention was unnecessary, especially as the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time to conclude.

The court held that given the intermediate quantity of the seized drug and the applicant’s clean record, he was entitled to liberty pending trial.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory appearance on all trial dates; and (iii) compliance with procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding presence during framing of charges and recording of statements.