Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 03.11.2026
Karnataka HC Grants Regular Bail After Treating Ganja Seizure as Intermediate Quantity
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Karnataka High Court granted regular bail to Kiran Kumar, finding that the alleged seizure fell within the intermediate-quantity category, the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, and the investigation was nearly complete.
Background of the case
The case arose from Crime No. 105/2026 registered at Mandya West Police Station. Police alleged that, on 11 August 2026, they received information that two individuals were attempting to sell ganja to members of the public and students within the station limits.
Following the information, police conducted a raid and apprehended two accused persons. The prosecution alleged that a total of 1 kg and 25 grams of ganja was recovered and seized under a panchanama. Of this, 810 grams was alleged to have been recovered from Kiran Kumar, who was arraigned as Accused No. 1.
Kiran Kumar was arrested on 11 August 2026 and remanded to judicial custody. His earlier bail application was rejected by the trial court on 15 September 2026. He then approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in the case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Why the High Court granted bail
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty considered the quantity allegedly seized, the petitionerβs criminal record, and the status of the investigation.
1. The alleged quantity was treated as intermediate quantity
The Court noted that the total alleged recovery was slightly more than 1 kg of ganja. It treated this as an intermediate quantity rather than a commercial quantity. This classification was important because the stricter bail limitations applicable to commercial-quantity NDPS cases were not attracted.
2. Section 37βs stringent bail restriction was held inapplicable
The Court specifically observed that the rigor of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act could not be applied against the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. Section 37 imposes additional restrictions on bail in specified serious NDPS matters, particularly those involving commercial quantities.
3. No prior NDPS case was shown against the petitioner
The order records that Kiran Kumar had no other case registered against him for offences under the NDPS Act. The absence of prior NDPS allegations weighed in favour of granting bail.
4. Investigation was almost complete
The Court also took into account that the investigation was nearly complete. This reduced the concern that the petitionerβs release could interfere with the investigative process.
Bail conditions imposed by the Court
Although the petition was allowed, the High Court made the release subject to safeguards intended to secure the petitionerβs participation in the trial and protect the prosecution process. Kiran Kumar must:
- Execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
- Appear regularly before the trial court on every hearing date, unless exempted for valid reasons.
- Refrain from directly or indirectly threatening, influencing, or tampering with prosecution witnesses.
- Not commit similar offences in the future.
- Remain within the jurisdiction of the trial court unless permission is granted to leave, until the criminal case is disposed of.
Legal significance of the order
The order illustrates that bail in an NDPS prosecution depends heavily on the alleged quantity of contraband, the applicability of Section 37, the accused personβs prior record, and the stage of investigation. The Court did not decide guilt or innocence; it made a limited determination that regular bail could be granted with conditions while the case proceeds before the trial court.
The petition was allowed on 30 October 2026, and Kiran Kumar was ordered to be released on bail subject to compliance with the stated conditions.
Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Karnataka High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply