Possession of a commercial quantity of narcotics requires strict compliance with bail conditions under the NDPS Act, which were not satisfied in this case.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking bail in COR No.140 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nizamabad registered for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 27(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Amendment Act, 2001) (for short “NDPS Act, 1985”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithender Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The case for the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioners herein are alleged to have been found in possession of 30 kgs of Ganja, which was seized from them. As the petitioners were in possession of the same, they have been charged with offences under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 27(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the said offences and that the seizure made by the prosecution is against the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985, as the prosecution has not followed Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and the said contraband is said to have been seized during sunset. In view of the failure to follow the NDPS Act, 1985, the very seizure of the contraband is claimed to be illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Bail Application No. 2865 of 2022 and contended that, in view of the order passed by the said judgment, the petitioners are also entitled to the grant of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not entitled to bail for the reason that they are in possession of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity, and there is a bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by both parties and having considered the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the factual aspects of the said judgment and the facts placed before this Court are not similar. Also, the bail granted in the said judgment is on different footing. Learned counsel for the petitioners, though contended that Sections 42 and 52(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985, were not complied with, which would entitle the petitioners to bail, considering the circumstances before this Court, it is contended that the prosecution seized the contraband from the petitioners’ possession after sunset. He also pointed out the same in the panchanama. However, this alone cannot be made a ground for concluding that it will lead to acquittal in the main case. Moreover, nothing has been placed before this Court by the petitioners to show that they would not commit a similar offence if enlarged on bail, Twin conditions which are required to be satisfied for the purpose of obtaining bail as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. This Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners are alleged to have been in possession of 30 kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity, and there being no grounds to conclude that the petitioners have satisfied the conditions for bail, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.