Section 37 NDPS Act rigors do not apply where joint ganja recovery is below commercial quantity.

The applicants—Shankar Behra, Chanchal Behra, Kapila Bakul and Rashmi Bakul—were arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2026 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Acting on secret information, the police allegedly seized 10.270 kilograms of ganja from the joint possession of the applicants.

The applicants contended that they had been falsely implicated, that the contraband was not recovered from their exclusive possession, and that the statutory requirements under Section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been followed.

They further argued that the seized quantity was below the commercial quantity of 20 kilograms, that they had no criminal antecedents, and that they had remained in custody since 30 April 2026.

The State opposed bail but confirmed that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicants had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicants were 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 recovery of 10.270 kilograms of ganja?

Whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied where the quantity allegedly recovered was less than the prescribed 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 offences involving ganja.

It treated 20 kilograms as the prescribed commercial quantity for ganja and held that recovery of 10.270 kilograms was below the commercial threshold.

Consequently, the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted in the same manner as they would be in a case involving commercial quantity.

The Court also considered the absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial as relevant bail considerations.

The Court found that the alleged recovery of 10.270 kilograms of ganja was less than the commercial quantity of 20 kilograms.

Accordingly, the statutory rigours applicable to commercial-quantity offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not prevent consideration of the applicants’ bail applications.

The Court additionally relied on the applicants’ lack of criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that they had been in custody since 30 April 2026.

On the totality of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicants were entitled to bail, without recording a final determination on the applicants’ objections regarding exclusive possession or compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to appear before the trial court as directed, and to remain personally present at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court further stipulated consequences for absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation proceedings.