Section 37 NDPS Act rigours do not apply to intermediate-quantity ganja offences.

On 8 April 2026, police, acting on informer information, conducted a raid and allegedly seized 8.500 kg of ganja from the exclusive possession of Guman Mandle.

He was arrested the same day, and Crime No. 147/2026 was registered at Police Station Tilda-Nevra, District Raipur, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

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

He contended that the recovered quantity was intermediate and below commercial quantity, that he had only one non-NDPS antecedent under Section 392 of the IPC, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of recovery from the applicant’s exclusive possession and his criminal antecedent, while conceding that the antecedent was unrelated to the NDPS Act and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicant had remained in judicial custody since 8 April 2026.

Whether the applicant should be granted 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 8.500 kg of ganja?

Whether the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply where the alleged contraband is of intermediate quantity and below commercial quantity?

Whether the applicant’s single, non-NDPS criminal antecedent, together with the alleged recovery, justified denial of bail?

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, which penalises possession and related acts concerning cannabis/ganja.

The Court held that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in cases involving commercial quantity; since 8.500 kg of ganja was treated as intermediate quantity and below commercial quantity, those restrictions were not applicable.

The Court also applied the general bail considerations of the filing of the charge-sheet, length of custody, absence of a similar NDPS antecedent, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial.

The Court found that the alleged recovery of 8.500 kg of ganja was below commercial quantity and therefore did not attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Although the recovery was alleged to have been made from the applicant’s exclusive possession and he had one criminal antecedent, that antecedent arose from a non-NDPS offence under Section 392 of the IPC and did not involve similar conduct.

The Court further relied on the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 8 April 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On the cumulative consideration of these factors, the Court concluded that continued incarceration was not warranted pending trial.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The release was made subject to conditions that he would not influence or threaten witnesses, would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and would appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the proceedings.

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