The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that the threshold for invoking the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hinges strictly on whether the seized quantity meets the statutory definition of 'commercial quantity'. In this case, the Court granted regular bail to two accused persons despite the seizure of over 15 kilograms of ganja, holding that the amount fell short of the prescribed limit and thus did not trigger the mandatory denial of bail.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Pawan Manhare and Jitendra Dasriya, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 453/2025 registered at Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, for an offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that on 09.12.2025, acting on information from an informer, police recovered 15.750 kg of ganja from the joint possession of the applicants and other co-accused persons. The applicants were subsequently taken into judicial custody on the same date.
Key Facts
- The seized contraband was 15.750 kg of ganja
- The Schedule to the NDPS Act prescribes commercial quantity of ganja as 20 kg or more
- The applicants have no prior criminal record under the NDPS Act
- The charge-sheet was filed before the competent court prior to the bail application
- The applicants have been in judicial custody since 09.12.2025
- No search warrant was obtained prior to the recovery, raising procedural concerns under Section 42 of the NDPS Act
Procedural History
- 09.12.2025: Recovery of 15.750 kg ganja; arrest of applicants
- Post-09.12.2025: Charge-sheet filed before the trial court
- 18.03.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- 18.03.2026: Hearing before the Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The applicants sought regular bail on the grounds that:
- The seized quantity (15.750 kg) is below the commercial quantity threshold of 20 kg under the NDPS Act
- Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates denial of bail unless certain conditions are met, is not attracted
- They have no prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act
- The trial is likely to extend over a prolonged period
- The prosecution failed to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding search procedures
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given that the seized quantity of ganja (15.750 kg) is less than the commercial quantity of 20 kg prescribed under the NDPS Act, and whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply in such circumstances.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that:
- The quantity of ganja seized (15.750 kg) is below the statutory commercial quantity of 20 kg as per the Schedule to the NDPS Act
- Consequently, Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for grant of bail in commercial quantity cases, is not attracted
- The applicants have no prior criminal record under the NDPS Act
- The charge-sheet has already been filed, indicating the investigation is complete
- The applicants have been in custody since 09.12.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time
- The prosecution failed to obtain a search warrant under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, rendering the recovery procedurally defective
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the bail application on the grounds that:
- A substantial quantity of ganja (15.750 kg) was recovered from the joint possession of the applicants
- The charge-sheet has been filed, indicating the seriousness of the offence
- The nature of the offence under Section 20(B) is grave and warrants continued custody
- The fact that the quantity is below commercial threshold does not negate the seriousness of the crime
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a statutory interpretation of the NDPS Act, particularly the definition of 'commercial quantity' under the Schedule. It noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act explicitly applies only when the quantity of narcotic drug involved is 'not less than' the commercial quantity specified. Since 15.750 kg is less than 20 kg, the mandatory bar on bail under Section 37 does not arise.
"The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted, as the commercial quantity of Ganja prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kilograms, whereas only 15.750 kilograms has been seized in the present case."
The Court further observed that the applicants have no prior criminal record under the NDPS Act and have been in custody for over three months. The filing of the charge-sheet indicated that the investigation was complete and the case had moved to the adjudicatory stage. The Court also acknowledged the procedural irregularity under Section 42, though it did not make it the basis of its decision.
The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly in cases where the statutory bar on bail does not apply. The Court held that the applicants’ continued detention without a compelling reason, given the absence of Section 37’s applicability, would be unjust.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The applicants, Pawan Manhare and Jitendra Dasriya, are to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court imposed specific conditions, including mandatory personal appearance on key trial dates, prohibition against seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, and consequences for non-appearance under Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The trial court was directed to receive a certified copy of this order for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Commercial Quantity Threshold Is Dispositive
- Practitioners must verify the exact quantity seized against the Schedule to the NDPS Act before arguing Section 37 applicability
- Any quantity below the statutory commercial threshold (e.g., 20 kg for ganja, 1 kg for heroin) automatically renders Section 37 inapplicable
- Bail applications under Section 483 BNSS must be framed around this threshold, not the perceived seriousness of the offence
Procedural Compliance Still Matters, Even If Not Decisive
- Failure to obtain a search warrant under Section 42 NDPS Act remains a serious irregularity that can be raised to challenge evidence
- While not the basis for bail in this case, such defects may lead to exclusion of evidence or acquittal at trial
- Defence counsel should always raise Section 42 violations as a separate ground, even when bail is granted on quantity grounds
Trial Court Conditions Are Binding and Enforceable
- The Court’s conditions on appearance and adjournments are not mere suggestions but enforceable obligations
- Non-compliance may trigger proceedings under Sections 269 and 209 BNSS, including arrest and forfeiture of bond
- Practitioners must advise clients of these conditions explicitly and ensure strict adherence
