Section 37 NDPS rigours do not apply to below-commercial-quantity possession; regular bail granted.

The applicant, Subham Prajapati, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 219/2026 registered at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, the police searched the applicant and recovered 15.654 kilograms of ganja from his possession.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicant had remained in custody since 11 June 2026, contended that the recovered quantity was below the commercial quantity, and asserted that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, referring to the manner of commission and disclosing one IPC case of 2021 registered against the applicant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 15.654 kilograms of ganja?

Whether the quantity allegedly recovered, being below commercial quantity, excluded the application of the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely delay in trial, and the applicant’s disclosed criminal antecedent justified grant 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 the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which concerns possession of cannabis/ganja involving a quantity greater than small quantity but less than commercial quantity.

The Court accepted that the rigorous conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted where the alleged recovery is below commercial quantity.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the quantity recovered, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the probable duration of trial, and the applicant’s criminal antecedent.

The Court noted that the alleged recovery of 15.654 kilograms of ganja was below commercial quantity; consequently, the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted.

It further considered that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the immediate need for continued custodial detention.

Although the State disclosed a prior IPC case and opposed bail on the basis of the alleged manner of commission, the Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 11 June 2026 and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these factors against the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court held that the applicant deserved release on regular bail.

The bail was subject to conditions that the applicant 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 trial.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.