Section 8

The Madras High Court at Madurai granted bail to a man accused of bringing 5.20 kg of suspected hydroponic weed/ganja from Phuket through Kuala Lumpur to Trichy airport (paras 1-2, 12). With no chemical analysis report on record, it refused to treat the seizure as commercial quantity on the prosecution's THC argument; treated as ganja, the limit is 20 kg, so the Section 37 embargo was not applied at the bail stage (paras 8-10).

The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to a man found with 180 grams of mephedrone during a 10 pm search of a house without a warrant. The SHO had recorded the information and his grounds for not getting a warrant before the search and sent them to his superior, which was prima facie compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act (paras 12-15). As commercial quantity was involved, the Section 37 bar applied (para 17).

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a woman accused of bringing 13.324 kg of hydroponic ganja from Bangkok through Mumbai airport, because the chemical analysis (C.A.) report had still not been filed before the trial court after the charge-sheet (paras 4, 7, 9). Following Bablu Singh and Ashish Prakash Walke, it allowed the application, but drew on the Rajasthan High Court's Kuldeep Singh order on economic offences to impose stringent conditions (paras 7-9).

The Karnataka High Court refused regular bail to three men intercepted at Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport on arrival from Bangkok, with 36.430 kg of alleged hydroponic ganja recovered from their baggage (paras 1, 3, 14). Although hydroponic ganja is punished under the ganja entry, the Court held that its higher THC and value make the harm to society greater, so possession of an intermediate quantity is not by itself a ground for bail (paras 10, 13).

The Patna High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused after 7.070 kg of hydroponic weed (marijuana) was recovered from her bag in a Gaya airport Customs case (paras 2-3, 6). Considering the facts and her period in custody, it released her on the conditions of a co-ordinate Bench order that had bailed her friend, arrested the same day from the same flight, without ruling on whether the quantity was commercial (paras 4-6).

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused under Sections 8/20/23 of the NDPS Act over an alleged 2 kg 300 g of hydroponic weed (paras 3-4). His counsel argued that it differs from ganja only in being grown in water (paras 5-6). The reasons rest on complicity, severity of punishment and a recovery below commercial quantity, without comment on the merits (para 11).

The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in an NDPS charas case and set aside the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh's order refusing it (paras 3, 12-13). He was allegedly found with 602 g; two others traced on his disclosure had 498 g and 318 g (para 5). The Court expressly left open whether the combined recovery could be counted against him to cross commercial quantity, and rested bail on the completed investigation and over a year in custody (para 11).

The Rajasthan High Court discharged the registered owner of a motorcycle who had been charged under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act after two riders were caught with 500 grams of ganja. Section 25 reaches only an owner who "knowingly permits" the vehicle to be used for an offence, and knowledge cannot be presumed from ownership (paras 8-9, 16). The Section 35 presumption of a culpable mental state arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts (paras 11, 14).

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS to a man accused by the Narcotics Control Bureau of recruiting couriers for an international cartel bringing hydroponic ganja from Thailand, after 1.064 kg was seized from a co-accused at Amritsar airport (paras 1-2, 9). Although he was not caught with any drug, it held that a Section 29 conspiracy needs no physical possession and that custodial interrogation was needed to trace the source of supply (paras 6, 9).

The Gauhati High Court granted bail to a passenger held by the DRI over 2.060 kg of suspected hydroponic weed/cannabis, holding that his custody began at the airport interception at about 23:45 on 12.04.2026, not at the formal arrest at 17:00 the next day (paras 4, 9, 13). Daytime production on 14.04.2026 breached Article 22(2), and bail followed on that ground alone (paras 13-14).

The Supreme Court upheld a 1997 NDPS conviction for 100 grams of smack found in a water bottle, but reduced the sentence from 14 years to the 10-year minimum under the unamended Section 21. Section 50 did not apply to a search of a bottle the accused was carrying, and drawing samples without a Magistrate was only a procedural irregularity under Section 52A. The 2001 amendment did not help, as the trial had ended before it (paras 13, 15-16, 18-20).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a pickup driver held with 162.800 kg of poppy husk, finding prima facie total non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act: police had received secret information before the night interception but sent nothing to superior officers. With the accused in custody for about two and a half years and charges not yet framed, the Court held the Section 37 twin conditions prima facie satisfied (paras 7-10).