Seizure of Narcotic Syrup Above Commercial Quantity Precludes Grant of Bail Despite Family Medical Hardship.

The applicant, Shashi Soni, was arrested on 28.01.2025 in connection with Crime No. 0058/2025 at P.S. Ambikapur for possession of 41 units of WINGS RS Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Syrup (Total: 4,100 ml)

The prosecution alleged the quantity was commercial under the NDPS Act.

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that: (a) the pure narcotic content (Codeine) was not determined to establish it as commercial quantity; (b) six out of nine witnesses have been examined, with two independent witnesses turning hostile; and (c) the applicant’s 15-year-old son is suffering from blindness requiring urgent medical care

The State opposed bail, citing the large volume of contraband seized from the applicant’s possession

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the quantity of the seized contraband and the trial's progress.

The Court applied Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which prescribes stringent punishment for possession of commercial quantities of manufactured drugs

It also functioned under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court’s power to grant bail

The court implicitly followed the principle that in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, the gravity of the offense and the volume of recovery are primary considerations in denying bail

The Court analyzed the gravity of the offense based on the quantity of the recovery—4,100 ml of Codeine-based syrup—conforming that it is "much above the commercial quantity"

While the applicant argued for a 1 kg pure-drug-content threshold and cited the medical condition of his son and the hostility of independent witnesses, the Court found these grounds insufficient to override the recovery's weight

The Court noted that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the possession and concluded that the circumstances did not support a claim of false implication

Despite the trial having proceeded to the examination of six witnesses, the Court prioritized the strictness of the NDPS Act regarding commercial quantities over the delay or familial hardships

However, acknowledging that the applicant has been in custody for thirteen months and the trial is nearing completion, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, ideally within three months

The trial court was instructed to proceed in accordance with the law, provided no legal impediments exist