‘When It Comes To Ganja, We Are Very Liberal’: Supreme Court On Bail In NDPS Case

The Supreme Court on September 16 orally observed that it takes a “very liberal” approach while considering bail pleas in cases involving ganja under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale made the observation while hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Biswanath Mandal, a West Bengal resident accused in an NDPS case concerning the alleged seizure of 252.330 kg of ganja.

During the hearing, the Bench told Mandal’s counsel: “Come for bail, we’ll give you. See, when it comes to Ganja, we are very liberal. Whenever it comes to us, we grant bail.” The Court indicated that if Mandal’s regular bail application was rejected by the lower court, he could approach the Supreme Court thereafter.

Case background

Mandal had approached the Supreme Court challenging a February 13, 2026 order of the Calcutta High Court, which had rejected his application for anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered at Kotwali Police Station in Cooch Behar.

According to the prosecution case, 15 packets containing 252.330 kg of ganja were allegedly recovered from a house at Rajpur, Bairati. Mandal was not present when the search and seizure took place. The Calcutta High Court nevertheless held that he could not completely disassociate himself from the premises, treating him as its owner, and referred to the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Before the Supreme Court, Mandal’s counsel disputed the prosecution’s claim that he owned the house. It was argued that there was no title deed, revenue or municipal record, utility bill, rent receipt or other independent material establishing his ownership, possession or control over the premises.

The petitioner also claimed that there was no recovery from him and no independent material linking him to conscious possession or participation in the alleged narcotics offence. His plea further pointed out that his co-accused, described as his second wife, had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.

Supreme Court declines anticipatory bail

Despite the oral observations regarding its approach to bail in ganja cases, the Supreme Court did not grant Mandal anticipatory bail.

When counsel pressed the argument concerning ownership of the premises, the Bench observed that the issue was a matter for investigation. It offered Mandal time to surrender and apply for regular bail instead.

The Bench also declined to apply an earlier Supreme Court judgment cited by the petitioner without considering its factual context, observing that “That must be on the facts of that case.” The anticipatory bail plea was ultimately dismissed.