1. Bail application for alleged recovery of ganja under NDPS Act, Sections 8(c) r/w 20(c). (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1122
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA GOKHALE
CHINMAY BIBHUTI SAHANI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
BA/3204/2025
Important Points
Bail may be granted under the NDPS Act if there are significant discrepancies in the weight of the contraband, potential inclusion of non-contraband elements, no criminal antecedents, and a prolonged period of incarceration without charges being framed.
Subject
Criminal Law - NDPS Act
Act Referred
Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: S.8(c), S.20(c), S.2(iii)(b)
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) read with 20(c) and Section 2(iii)(b) - Bail - Recovery of ganja - Determination of commercial quantity - Discrepancy in weights recorded in official documents - Exclusion of seeds and leaves from the definition of ganja - Possibility of quantity falling within non-commercial range - Period of incarceration exceeding one year and three months - Charges not yet framed - Absence of criminal antecedents - Bail granted as continued incarceration serves no purpose. (Paras 4 and 7)
Facts of the case:
An applicant was apprehended with a gunny bag containing ganja allegedly weighing 20.067 Kgs. Various official records, including the Seizure Panchanama and Inventory Panchanama, showed conflicting weights for the recovered contraband. The applicant contended that the total weight included seeds and leaves, which are not covered under the definition of ganja, and thus, excluding them would render the quantity non-commercial.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that considering the discrepancies in the weight and the inclusion of seeds and leaves, the recovered quantity might be within the non-commercial range. It further noted that the applicant had been incarcerated for over one year and three months without charges being framed and had no criminal antecedents.
Issues: Whether the recorded discrepancies in the weight of the contraband and the inclusion of elements not defined as ganja are sufficient to consider the quantity as non-commercial, and whether the period of detention and lack of prior criminal record justify the grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Where there are discrepancies in the recorded weight of the contraband and the quantity is marginally above the commercial threshold, particularly if it may include non-contraband elements, and the applicant has undergone significant incarceration without the trial commencing or charges being framed, the absence of criminal antecedents makes continued detention unnecessary.
Result: Application allowed.
Facts of the case:
An applicant was apprehended with a gunny bag containing ganja allegedly weighing 20.067 Kgs. Various official records, including the Seizure Panchanama and Inventory Panchanama, showed conflicting weights for the recovered contraband. The applicant contended that the total weight included seeds and leaves, which are not covered under the definition of ganja, and thus, excluding them would render the quantity non-commercial.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that considering the discrepancies in the weight and the inclusion of seeds and leaves, the recovered quantity might be within the non-commercial range. It further noted that the applicant had been incarcerated for over one year and three months without charges being framed and had no criminal antecedents.
Issues: Whether the recorded discrepancies in the weight of the contraband and the inclusion of elements not defined as ganja are sufficient to consider the quantity as non-commercial, and whether the period of detention and lack of prior criminal record justify the grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Where there are discrepancies in the recorded weight of the contraband and the quantity is marginally above the commercial threshold, particularly if it may include non-contraband elements, and the applicant has undergone significant incarceration without the trial commencing or charges being framed, the absence of criminal antecedents makes continued detention unnecessary.
Result: Application allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil G. Lalla, Yash Pulekar, Rushil Alag, Yashvi Jain, Amol M Thombre
For the Respondents: Megha S. Bajoria
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil G. Lalla, Yash Pulekar, Rushil Alag, Yashvi Jain, Amol M Thombre
For the Respondents: Megha S. Bajoria
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over weight of contraband being commercial quantity and inclusion of seeds and leaves. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Discrepancies in weight and inclusion of seeds/leaves may bring quantity within non-commercial limit. (Para 7 )
4. Bail may be granted when contraband weight is disputed, no criminal antecedents, and trial unlikely. (Para 7 )
5. Bail granted with conditions including bond, attendance, and non-tampering. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. What is the standard for granting bail in NDPS cases involving borderline commercial quantities?
Discrepancies in weight and inclusion of non-contraband material can justify bail when applicant has no antecedents and trial is delayed. (Para 4 , 7 )
PC:-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.55 of 2024 dated 24th September, 2024 registered with the ANC Kandivali Unit, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(c) of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS').
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the officers of the Anti Narcotic Cell, Kandivali Unit, were on patrolling duty when hey found the Applicant loitering suspiciously on a public road, in front of Laxmi Singh Chawl, Shankar Nagar, Wasri Hill, Goregaon (West), Mumbai at about 21:10 hours carrying a gunny bag. On noticing the police officers, the Applicant attempted to flee. The officers chased and apprehended him and, after following the due procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act, conducted a search. No contraband was recovered from the person of the Applicant; however, from the white coloured gunny bag contraband was recovered, which was confirmed to be ganja. According to the prosecution, the total weight of the ganja was 20.067 Kgs of ganja. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR the Applicant came to be arrested on 24th September, 2024.
3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before the Special Judge, NDPS, Greater Mumbai, however, by order dated 23rd July, 2025, the said application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant has filed the present Bail Application for the reliefs as prayed.
4. Mr. Lalla, learned counsel for the Applicant, submits that the commercial quantity of ganja is 20 Kgs and only 20.067 Kgs were allegedly recovered from the present Applicant. He further submits that there are discrepancies in the weight of the contraband, inasmuch as the Seizure Panchanama records the quantity to be 22.067 Kgs; the Inventory Panchanama records it to be 22.200 Kgs; and the Magistrate's certificate reflects the weight as 22.080 Kgs. He also submits that the seeds and leaves are not covered under the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. He submits that however the weight of the ganja as weighed by the Investigating Officer is with the seeds and leaves. According to him, if the weight of seeds and leaves is excluded, the quantity of ganja recovered would fall within the non-commercial quantity. He further submits, on instructions from the learned Advocate on record, that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He therefore, prays that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Ms. Bajoria, learned APP representing the State, on the other hand, submits that 20 Kgs and above constitutes a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. She submits that, even assuming the discrepancies in the weight of ganja as pointed out by Mr. Lalla, the same are not significant. She further submits that the CA report is also positive for ganja. She therefore, prays that the application be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the case with their assistance.
7. Considering the discrepancies in the weight of the ganja as well as the quantity has been arrived at by including the seeds and leaves, it is possible that the ganja allegedly recovered would be within the non-commercial quantity. The Applicant was arrested on 24th September, 2024, and has has undergone incarceration for more than one year and three months. The charges have not been framed. Considering that there are no criminal antecedents against the Applicant as well as discrepancies in the weight of ganja, no purpose will be served by his continued incarceration. It is also unlikely that the trial would commence in the near foreseeable future. In these circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under:-
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date unless exempted b
