Statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act precludes bail for commercial quantity narcotic seizures.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail for offences under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

On April 16, 2025, the police registered Crime No. 193/2025 following the seizure of 30 kilograms of ganja—a commercial quantity—from the joint possession of the applicant and other co-accused persons

The applicant was arrested on the same day and has remained in judicial custody for over eleven months

While the applicant contended that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession (only a mobile phone) and that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were violated, the prosecution highlighted the organized nature of the crime and the prior rejection of a co-accused's bail application

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding commercial quantities of contraband

The court primarily applied Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which penalizes the production, manufacture, possession, sale, or purchase of cannabis

the court invoked Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which provides a statutory embargo against the grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantities unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail

Procedurally, the application was moved under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 439 of the CrPC)

The court evaluated the gravity of the offence based on the quantity of the seized contraband (30 kg of ganja), noting it significantly exceeded the commercial threshold

Although the applicant argued that only a mobile phone was recovered from his person and no contraband was in his "conscious possession," the court observed that the manner of procurement and intended sale prima facie indicated a "systematic activity" falling under organized narcotic crime

The court further applied the principle of consistency, noting that the bail application of a co-accused, Tushar Dewangan, had already been rejected in MCRC No. 2785/2026

Consequently, the court found that the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, outweighing the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and the duration of his detention

The court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and directed the registry to communicate the order for compliance