The Karnataka High Court has denied regular bail to a man accused of carrying hydroponic ganja allegedly trafficked into India from Thailand, holding that the combined quantity of 24.186 kilograms recovered from two trolley bags constituted a commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty observed that the material collected during the investigation prima facie indicated that the accused was part of a syndicate involved in trafficking drugs across India and observed that the stringent bail restrictions prescribed under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act were therefore attracted.
Buy Now: E-Magazine: 100 Landmark Customs Judgments
The petitioner, arrayed as accused had approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail. He was facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20, 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The case originated from information received by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’s Bengaluru Zonal Unit. Acting on the information, DRI officers intercepted accused nos. 1 and 2 at the Krantivira Sangolli Rayanna Railway Station in Bengaluru on August 20, 2025.
The two accused were allegedly preparing to board Rajdhani Express train no. 22691 from Bengaluru to Delhi. The authorities claimed to have recovered 29.880 kilograms of hydroponic ganja from the trolley bags carried by them.
According to the prosecution, statements made by the arrested accused led officers to accused nos. 3 and 4, who were apprehended from a room at Hotel Orchid Bloom on Bagalur Main Road in Bengaluru. Hydroponic ganja was allegedly recovered from their possession as well.
The information obtained during the investigation was subsequently shared with the DRI’s Indore Zonal Unit. Officers apprehended the petitioner and accused no. 6 at Bhopal railway station. Two trolley bags allegedly containing a total of 24.186 kilograms of hydroponic ganja were recovered from them.
The petitioner’s earlier application for regular bail was rejected by the trial court on June 1, 2026, prompting him to approach the High Court.
The petitioner argued that the contraband was recovered from two separate trolley bags carried by accused. It was submitted that the quantity attributable to the petitioner’s individual bag fell within the intermediate-quantity category.
The petitioner also maintained that he did not know the contents of the trolley bag and could consequently not be regarded as being in conscious possession of the contraband. His counsel further pointed out that the investigation had been completed and that accused nos. 3 and 4 had already been granted regular bail by the trial court on the ground that they were individually carrying only an intermediate quantity.
The DRI opposed the bail plea, contending that accused nos. 5 and 6 were carriers associated with a syndicate trafficking drugs into and across India. The agency alleged that the hydroponic ganja had been illegally brought into India from Thailand.
The DRI further contended that the evidence showed that both accused were consciously carrying the contraband in trolley bags. As the total quantity recovered from them was 24.186 kilograms, the agency argued that it amounted to commercial quantity and attracted the bar against bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution also informed the Court that the orders granting bail to accused nos. 3 and 4 had already been challenged before the High Court.
After examining the record, the Court found prima facie material connecting the arrested accused with Harneet Singh Sethi, who was described by the prosecution as the alleged kingpin of the operation. The Court noted that accused nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 had referred to their contact with the alleged kingpin in their statements and that the investigating agency had collected material indicating a connection between them.
The Court also took note of the circumstances surrounding the recovery from accused nos. 5 and 6. It recorded that they had allegedly refused to cooperate in opening the trolley bags, requiring the officers to break open the locks to recover the contraband.
These circumstances, according to the Court, prima facie demonstrated that the petitioner and the co-accused were in conscious possession of the hydroponic ganja.
The High Court rejected the argument that the petitioner should receive bail because the amount contained in his individual bag was only of intermediate quantity. It held that the two accused were together carrying 24.186 kilograms of hydroponic ganja and that the recovered contraband must consequently be treated as commercial quantity.
Referring to its earlier ruling in Jafar Ali Iqbal v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that hydroponic or hybrid ganja is not separately included in the Central Government notification specifying small and commercial quantities. Therefore, the quantity thresholds applicable to ganja are used for determining punishment.
The Court noted that hydroponic ganja is grown artificially in a controlled environment, using water rather than soil, and contains a comparatively higher concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. It observed that the potency and market value of hydroponic ganja are significantly higher than those of ordinary ganja.
The earlier ruling had also flagged an alleged practice of carriers transporting less than 20 kilograms each so that the quantity found with an individual accused could be presented as intermediate rather than commercial. The Court had cautioned that accused persons should not be permitted to exploit such gaps in the legal framework while seeking bail.
Reiterating those observations, Justice Shetty said that courts must remain conscious of the societal harm caused by hydroponic ganja while deciding bail applications. Merely because the quantity individually attributed to an accused is described as intermediate cannot, by itself, justify bail where the surrounding material indicates involvement in an organised trafficking operation.
The Court further held that completion of the investigation was not sufficient to release a person accused of trafficking a commercial quantity of drugs. It observed that the evidence collected by the DRI disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner and indicated that the accused were members of a syndicate engaged in distributing drugs across India.
Explaining the requirements of Section 37, the Court said Parliament had imposed strict conditions for granting bail in NDPS cases to address the danger caused by narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. An accused covered by the provision cannot be released unless the statutory conditions are satisfied, including the requirement that the court find reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
The High Court found no material supporting such a conclusion in the petitioner’s favour. It also observed that there appeared to be no reason for the authorities to falsely implicate him.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Kerala v. Rajesh, in which it was held that a liberal approach to bail in cases governed by the NDPS Act’s restrictive conditions was unwarranted.
Noting that some of the persons named in the complaint were yet to be arrested, the High Court concluded that the petitioner’s request for regular bail could not be entertained at that stage and dismissed the petition.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
