Patna HC: Whether an offence under the NDPS Act is bailable if it involves the seizure of a 'small quantity' of narcotic drugs?

 As such, this Court unequivocally holds that the offence under Section 21(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one years, is to be classified as a 'bailable offence'. Accordingly, where the contravention under the N.D.P.S. Act involves a 'small quantity' of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, as per the relevant notification, such offences shall be treated as "bailable" in nature. In the case of bailable offence, the right of bail is a matter of statutory right and in such circumstance, there is no any discretion available either to the police or the Court itself. The accused is entitled to be released on bail automatically upon arrest, subject only to the execution and furnishing of the requisite bail bonds or sureties, as may be directed. {Para 26}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 15800 of 2025 and 18113 of 2025

Decided On: 10.04.2025

Raju Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

and

Roshan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.

Citation:  MANU/BH/1283/2025.

Print Page

What are small, intermediate and commercial quantity of Ganja as per NDPS Act and what are punishments for these offences?

 As per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the "small quantity" of ganja is defined as any quantity up to 1 kilogram (1000 grams). This threshold is specified by a notification from the Central Government and is used to determine the severity of punishment for offences involving ganja.

• : Up to 1 kg (1000 grams) of ganja

• : 20 kg or more of ganja

Possession of ganja in a quantity less than or equal to 1 kg is treated as a "small quantity" offence under the NDPS Act, which attracts a comparatively lighter penalty—rigorous imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to ₹10,000, or both. Quantities above 1 kg but below 20 kg fall into an intermediate category, and quantities of 20 kg or more are considered "commercial quantity," attracting much harsher penalties.

Print Page

Bombay HC: [NDPS Act] Combined Weight Of LSD & Blotter Relevant To Determine Small Or Commercial Quantity of Contraband

 For all the above reasons, we hold that a blotter paper forms an integral part of the L.S.D. (drug) when put on it for consumption and, as such, the weight of the blotter paper containing L.S.D. will have to be considered for determining a small or commercial quantity of the offending drug under the NDPS Act, 1985. Further, we also hold that the blotter paper that carries the drug (L.S.D. drops), which facilitates its consumption as a whole, is a preparation, mixture, or neutral substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act, 1985.{Para 113}

114. Since the referral order refers to L.S.D. as a drug, we have continued to adopt that term when answering the two questions referred to. However, in terms of Section 2 (xxiii) of the NDPS Act, there is no dispute that L.S.D. will have to be classified as a psychotropic substance and not a drug.

115. In conclusion, therefore, we endorse the view taken in Anuj Keshwani (supra) that the combined weight of the L.S.D. and the blotter is relevant to determine small or commercial quantities and not the view in Hitesh Malhotra (supra) and Harsh Meshram (supra) that only the weight of the pure L.S.D. is the determinative factor. The reference is answered accordingly.

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa

(Before M.S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.)

H.S. Arun Kumar, Vs State of Goa, 

Criminal Application (Bail) No. 752/2021 (F)

Decided on November 9, 2022, 

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4696 : (2022) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 517.

Print Page

Under which circumstances the person accused of an offence under NDPS Act can be released on bail?

The main Section which could be attracted in her case is violation of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, which is made punishable under Section 20 or Section 22. In that case, it is necessary for the investigating agency to show that her activities or contravention involved commercial quantity of a Narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The investigation did not reveal any recovery either from the Applicant or from the house of Sushant Singh Rajput. It is their own case that the drugs were already consumed and hence there was no recovery. In that case, there is nothing at this stage to show that the Applicant had committed any offence involving commercial quantity of contraband. The material at the highest shows that she has committed an offence involving contraband, but, the crucial element of incurring rigours of Section 37 in respect of commercial quantity is missing. Therefore, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty of any offence punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A or any other offence involving commercial quantity. There are no other criminal antecedents against her. She is not part of the chain of drug dealers. She has not forwarded the drugs allegedly procured by her to somebody else to earn monetary or other benefits. Since she has no criminal antecedents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.{Para 86}

87. The learned ASG had argued that the celebrities and role models should be treated harshly so that it sets an example for the young generation and they do not get encouraged to commit such offences. I do not agree. Everybody is equal before law. No celebrity or role model enjoys any special privilege before the Court of law. Similarly, such person also does not incur any special liability when he faces law in the Courts. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits irrespective of the status of the accused.

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)

Rhea Chakraborty Vs Union of India (Through Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai and Another 

Criminal Bail Application (STAMP) No. 2386 of 2020

Decided on October 7, 2020,

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 990 : 2021 Cri LJ 248 : (2021) 1 AIR Bom R (Cri) 1 : (2021) 217 AIC (Sum 15) 8 : (2020) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 30

Print Page

Supreme Court: Quantity of neutral substance in mixture of Narcotic Drugs should be taken into consideration for determining small or commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs

 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Reference is answered as under:

(I). The decision of this Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj (Supra) taking

the view that in the mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance with

one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of the neutral substance(s) is not

to be taken into consideration while determining the small quantity or

commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and only the

actual content by weight of the offending narcotic drug which is relevant for the

purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or

commercial quantity, is not a good law;

(II). In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic

Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral

substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with

actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the “small or

commercial quantity” of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances;

(III). Section 21 of the NDPS Act is not stand-alone provision and must be

construed along with other provisions in the statute including provisions in the

NDPS Act including Notification No.S.O.2942(E) dated 18.11.2009 and

Notification S.O 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001;

(IV). Challenge to Notification dated 18.11.2009 adding “Note 4” to the

Notification dated 19.10.2001, fails and it is observed and held that the same is

not ultra vires to the Scheme and the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.

Consequently, writ petitions and Civil Appeal No. 5218/2017 challenging the  aforesaid notification stand dismissed.

11. The Reference is answered accordingly.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2017

HIRA SINGH  Vs  UNION OF INDIA 

M.R. SHAH, J.

Dated:APRIL 22, 2020.

Print Page