Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Bail Citing Non-Commercial Quantity of Cannabis and Absence of Criminal Antecedents, Imposes Strict Conditions to Prevent Abuse

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The court emphasized that the applicant had no prior criminal record, and the seized contraband (5 kgs of Ganja) did not meet the commercial quantity threshold of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the applicant was granted bail under specific conditions.

Facts:

The police seized 5 kilograms of illegal Ganja from a vehicle the applicant was traveling in. Based on this, the applicant was charged under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The applicant was subsequently arrested and has been in jail since 9 August 2024. A charge sheet has been filed in the case.

Issues:

• Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail, given the circumstances of his arrest and the quantity of contraband seized.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the applicant was falsely implicated and that the contraband was not seized from his exclusive possession. It was also contended that the authorities did not obtain a search warrant as required under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Moreover, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the seized quantity (5 kgs) was less than the commercial quantity (20 kgs), meaning the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not apply. Additionally, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was expected to take a long time to conclude.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State’s counsel opposed the bail, arguing that the applicant was found in possession of 5 kilograms of Ganja, a significant quantity, and that a charge sheet had already been filed.

Analysis of the Law:

The court examined the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly focusing on the quantity of the seized contraband and the relevance of Section 37, which applies stricter conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. Since the seized quantity (5 kgs) was below the commercial threshold, the rigors of Section 37 did not apply.

Precedent Analysis:

No specific precedents were cited in this case.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court highlighted the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, and the contraband seized was less than the commercial quantity as prescribed under the NDPS Act. Taking these factors into account, along with the filing of the charge sheet, the court concluded that the applicant should be granted bail with certain conditions to prevent any abuse of the bail’s liberty.

Conclusion:

The court granted the applicant bail with conditions that included the requirement for the applicant to attend all court hearings, refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments, and comply with trial procedures. Any breach of these conditions would result in the cancellation of the bail.

Implications:

The court’s decision emphasizes that the quantity of contraband plays a crucial role in determining whether bail can be granted under the NDPS Act, particularly distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial quantities. Additionally, the lack of criminal antecedents weighed heavily in favor of the applicant’s release on bail.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition for Deletion of Duplicate Voter Entries, Citing Non-Compliance with Procedural and Electoral Rules