Supreme Court Signals Leniency on Bail in Ganja Cases, Hears Bengal NDPS Plea

The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that it takes a lenient approach to bail in cases involving ganja, while hearing a petition from a West Bengal man accused in a narcotics case linked to the alleged recovery of 252.330 kg of the substance.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale verbally observed that an accused person may approach the top court for bail in such matters once a lower court has rejected the plea. The bench remarked that whenever ganja-related bail matters come before it, it grants relief, and told the petitioner to secure a dismissal from the court below and then move the Supreme Court.

The petition has been filed by Biswanath Mandal, who is challenging a February 13, 2026 order of the Calcutta High Court rejecting his application for anticipatory bail. The complaint was registered at Kotwali Police Station in Cooch Behar and relates to the alleged seizure of 15 packets containing a total of 252.330 kg of ganja from a house at Rajpur, Bairati.

Mandal has contended that he was not present at the house when the search and seizure took place and that nothing was recovered from him. He has also disputed the prosecution's claim that he owned the premises from which the contraband was allegedly recovered.

According to the plea, the investigation did not bring on record any title deed, revenue or municipal record, utility bill, rent receipt or other independent material to establish his ownership, lawful possession or control over the house. It further states that there was no recovery from Mandal, no disclosure or statement by him, and no independent evidence linking him to conscious possession or participation in the alleged narcotics trade.

The plea also points out that a co-accused, described as Mandal's second wife, was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. It says the High Court, while granting her relief, noted that no material had subsequently been recovered and that custodial detention was not warranted. Mandal argues that a similar assessment was not carried out in his case.

He has contended that the High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea without examining his individual role, his absence during the seizure, the material allegedly linking him to the contraband, and the need for his custodial interrogation. The plea relies on Supreme Court precedents to argue that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute bar on bail and that the statutory conditions must be considered on the facts of each case.

The petitioner has also cited his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the absence of previous criminal antecedents, and the fact that the investigation has substantially progressed with the charge sheet already filed. He contends that the prosecution has not demonstrated why his custodial interrogation is necessary.

Through the plea, Mandal seeks leave to appeal against the February 13 High Court order and appropriate relief. He has also sought interim protection by asking the Supreme Court to stay the operation of the FIR registered at Kotwali Police Station under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. Mandal is represented by Advocate Anish Roy.