Bail may be granted under the NDPS Act if the accused is found with an intermediate quantity rather than a commercial quantity, has no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet has been filed, satisfying the requirements of Section 37(1)(b)(ii).

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11995001250013 of 2025 registered with State Monitoring Cell Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C), 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of the allegation levelled against, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. The present application is vehemently objected to by learned APP on behalf of respondent- State by submitting that looking to the nature of offence as coming out from the FIR, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR including charge-sheet papers as well as order passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.

7. This Court has also considered the following aspects:

(i) The allegation being very serious inasmuch as commercial quantity of the contraband -Mephedrone weighing around 75 grams having been recovered from a vehicle which was being driven by the co-accused.

(ii) The fact of the vehicle being an Auto-rickshaw and whereas the charge-sheet itself clarifying that while the commercial quantity of the contraband had been procured by co-accused, the intermediate quantity amounting to 15.37 grams having been recovered from the present applicant.

(iii) The fact of the co-accused having small quantity of contraband i.e. 3.220 grams having been released by this Court and whereas the accused, who has not been considered, having been found with the commercial quantity of the contraband i.e. around 56.49 grams.

(iv) The fact of the applicant not having any antecedents.

(v) The above aspects that is the applicant not being found with any commercial quantity though from the other persons who were found in the vehicle, commercial quantity was recovered and the applicant not having antecedents, would meet with the requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

(vi) The fact of applicant being in custody since 16.05.2025 and the charge-sheet having been laid by the Investigating Officer.

8. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made