Bail Granted Despite Commercial Quantity of Ganja: P&H High Court’s Balanced Approach to Liberty

Date: May 5, 2025

Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Case: Ramesh v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-22787-2025

Case Background

In a significant judgment balancing individual liberty and statutory rigour, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a man arrested under the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 23.310 kg of ganja — a quantity just above the "commercial" threshold under the Act.

The petitioner, in custody since December 28, 2023, invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 of the CrPC, seeking regular bail on grounds of parity, delay in trial, marginal excess quantity, and lack of criminal antecedents.

FIR Details & Allegations

The FIR was registered at P.S. Sector 17/18, Gurugram, under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The police alleged:

• The petitioner was found inside a parked van near Pasco Automobiles, Sector 18, Gurugram.

• Upon search, a polythene bag containing 23.310 kg of ganja was recovered from the vehicle.

• Necessary compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was reportedly ensured in the presence of a Duty Magistrate.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Sandeep Singh Jattan, raised the following:

1. The quantity seized was just over the commercial limit.

2. There is no compliance with Section 50 in its true spirit.

3. Co-accused Mukesh has already been granted regular bail.

4. The petitioner has no prior criminal record.

5. Only 4 out of 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined — indicating delay in trial.

6. Continued incarceration would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

State’s Objections

The State opposed the bail, citing:

• The recovery being of commercial quantity,

• The seriousness of the offence under the NDPS Act.

However, the State did not dispute the facts about parity with co-accused or the stage of trial.

Court’s Analysis

The Court acknowledged that:

• The recovered quantity is marginally above commercial.

• The petitioner has been in custody for over 1 year and 4 months.

• The co-accused is on bail.

• Only 4 out of 19 witnesses have been examined.

• The case doesn’t appear to be progressing expeditiously.

It observed that even in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, courts can grant bail when there’s marginal excess, no prior record, and undue trial delays.

“A prolonged trial, marginal excess quantity, and parity with co-accused entitle the petitioner to bail to prevent further violation of Article 21.”

Key Precedents Cited

• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980

• Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22

• Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1

• Dalbara Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-47880-2022

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98

The Court particularly leaned on recent judgments of its own bench in cases involving “marginal commercial quantity”, where liberal interpretation was applied.

Final Verdict

The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted regular bail, subject to standard conditions.

Legal Takeaway

This judgment reinforces a nuanced principle in NDPS law:

Quantity alone doesn't override constitutional rights. When the quantity is only marginally over commercial, and there are no criminal antecedents, co-accused are on bail, and trial is delayed, courts are inclined to uphold personal liberty under Article 21.

This case is a powerful reminder of the importance of balancing strict laws with constitutional mandates.

If you're a legal professional handling NDPS cases, this is a must-cite precedent for bail applications involving marginally commercial quantities and prolonged custody.

#NDPSAct #NDPSLaw #DrugLawsIndia #BailUnderNDPS #CommercialQuantity #Section439CrPC #Article21 #BailJurisprudence #IndianCriminalLaw #GanjaCase #kanoonwalebhaiya