The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that possession of a non-commercial quantity of heroin, even after charge-sheet filing, does not automatically disqualify an accused from regular bail - particularly when trial delays are prolonged and no prior criminal record exists. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Raj Singh @ Sheru, was arrested on 26.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 517/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. He is accused of offences under Section 21(A)(B), 27(A), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution alleges that a secret information led to the seizure of 12.870 grams of heroin from the applicant and a co-accused.
Key Facts
- The quantity of heroin seized: 12.870 grams
- The seizure occurred on or before 26.12.2025
- The applicant was arrested on 26.12.2025 and has remained in judicial custody since
- No prior criminal antecedents are recorded against the applicant
- The charge-sheet was filed prior to the bail application
- The trial has not yet commenced, and its conclusion is expected to take considerable time
- The applicant is not alleged to be part of a larger drug syndicate or involved in trafficking
Procedural History
- 26.12.2025: Arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No. 517/2025
- Between 26.12.2025 and 13.04.2026: Judicial custody continued without trial commencement
- Before 13.04.2026: Charge-sheet filed in the case
- 13.04.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds that: (i) the quantity seized is below the commercial threshold; (ii) he has no criminal history; (iii) he has been in custody for over three months; and (iv) the trial is likely to be protracted.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused, arrested for possession of a non-commercial quantity of heroin under the NDPS Act and already facing a filed charge-sheet, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of prolonged pre-trial detention and absence of criminal antecedents.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that 12.870 grams of heroin is well below the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act, as per the notification under Section 29. He emphasized that the applicant has no criminal record, has been in custody since 26.12.2025, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. He relied on the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail should not be denied merely because a charge-sheet has been filed. He cited State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to underscore that the gravity of the offence must be balanced against the right to liberty.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel opposed bail, contending that the filing of the charge-sheet indicates sufficient evidence to proceed to trial and that offences under the NDPS Act are serious. He argued that the nature of the contraband - heroin - demands strict judicial caution, and that granting bail in such cases could undermine the deterrent effect of the law. He did not dispute the quantity or the absence of antecedents but insisted that the seriousness of the offence alone warranted denial of bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the NDPS Act and the procedural provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It noted that while Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, no such restriction applies when the quantity is below the threshold. The Court observed that 12.870 grams of heroin falls below the commercial quantity as defined under the 2018 notification, which sets the threshold at 50 grams for heroin.
"The quantity seized, being less than the commercial quantity, removes the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and brings the matter within the general bail jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."
The Court further held that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not negate the right to bail, especially where the accused has been in custody for over three months without trial commencement. It emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention without a reasonable prospect of early trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also noted the absence of any criminal history, which weighs in favour of the applicant.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the nature of the drug alone justifies denial of bail, stating that the legislature itself drew a distinction between commercial and non-commercial quantities, and courts must respect that legislative intent.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail to Raj Singh @ Sheru on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicant must comply with the following conditions: (i) file an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) appear before the trial court on all dates, personally or through counsel; (iii) face proceedings under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita if a proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and he fails to appear; and (iv) personally appear for the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. The trial court is directed to treat any deliberate absence as abuse of bail. The order was to be certified and forwarded to the trial court forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Commercial Quantity Overrides Charge-Sheet Status
- Practitioners may now confidently argue for bail in NDPS cases involving quantities below statutory thresholds, even after charge-sheet filing
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying denial of bail
- Courts must conduct a proportionality analysis: custody duration, trial progress, and quantity of contraband
Bail Conditions Must Be Specific and Enforceable
- Courts are expected to impose tailored conditions to prevent abuse of liberty, not blanket restrictions
- Conditions must reference specific provisions of BNSS and Nyaya Sanhita to ensure legal enforceability
- Failure to comply with conditions like personal appearance or no-adjournment undertakings can trigger summary proceedings under Sections 269 and 209
Trial Delay as a Ground for Bail
- Pre-trial detention exceeding three months in non-commercial NDPS cases now constitutes a compelling factor for bail
- Courts must record reasons for trial delays and consider them in bail adjudication
- This ruling aligns with Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan on the right to speedy trial
