Manish Kumar Prasad v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2026

An FIR was registered at Keshav Puram Police Station, Delhi, for offences under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

According to the prosecution, on 1 September 2025, the accused and another person were travelling on a Scooty.

The Delhi Police intercepted the Scooty and conducted a search.

The prosecution alleged that 21.20 kg of ganja was recovered.

The accused was arrested and remained in judicial custody from 1 September 2025.

The accused subsequently sought regular bail before the Delhi High Court.

At first glance, the alleged recovery of 21.20 kg appeared to involve a quantity attracting the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

However, the chargesheet described the recovered substance as containing not only “flowering or fruiting tops” but also a mixture of leafy, seed-bearing and grass-like material.

The Court examined the statutory definition of “ganja” under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act.

The Court observed that leafy, seed-bearing and grass-like material does not fall within the statutory definition of ganja merely because it was recovered along with cannabis material.

The Court therefore found the applicability of Section 37 to be doubtful on the facts presented at the bail stage.

The Court further observed that, because the recovered substance was a mixture, the actual quantity of material legally falling within the definition of ganja was likely to be below the commercial-quantity threshold.

The chargesheet had already been filed and the trial was expected to take considerable time.

The Court also noted that the accused had remained in custody for more than one year and that his conduct was recorded as “Satisfactory” in the Nominal Roll.

Although the accused was involved in another NDPS FIR, the Court noted that he had already been granted bail in that case.

The Court ultimately granted regular bail subject to specified conditions.

The Delhi High Court allowed the bail application filed by Manish Kumar Prasad.

The Court examined the composition of the recovered substance as described in the chargesheet rather than treating the entire 21.20 kg as ganja for the purpose of the bail determination.

It observed that the statutory definition under Section 2(iii)(b) covers the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, subject to the statutory exclusions.

The Court noted that the chargesheet itself described the recovered material as a mixture containing leafy, seed-bearing and grass-like substance.

Such material, according to the Court's prima facie assessment, did not fall within the statutory definition of ganja.

Consequently, the Court found the applicability of Section 37 to be doubtful.

The Court further observed that the quantity of the legally relevant flowering or fruiting tops was likely to be below the commercial-quantity threshold.

The fact that the chargesheet had already been filed and that the trial was likely to take time was also taken into consideration.

The Court noted that the accused had remained in judicial custody since 1 September 2025 and that his conduct was recorded as satisfactory.

The Court therefore directed his release on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Court clarified that its observations were made only for deciding the bail application and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.

Statutory definition is crucial: The decision highlights that the quantity of a narcotic substance must be assessed by reference to what the statute actually defines as the prohibited substance. The label used by the prosecution is not necessarily determinative.

Composition of seized material matters: The Court focused on the chargesheet's own description of the recovered substance as a mixture. This distinction was important because some components allegedly did not satisfy the statutory definition of ganja.

Commercial quantity and bail: Section 37 imposes substantially stricter conditions when the offence involves commercial quantity. The Court's doubt about whether the legally relevant ganja itself reached that threshold therefore directly affected the bail analysis.

Total weight versus legally relevant weight: The ruling illustrates the importance of distinguishing the total physical weight of a seized mixture from the quantity of the substance that legally falls within the relevant statutory definition.

Bail-stage assessment: The Court did not finally determine the accused's guilt or conclusively adjudicate the composition of the seized material. Its observations were expressly confined to deciding the bail application.

Custody and trial delay: The Court also considered that the accused had spent more than a year in custody, the chargesheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

Previous NDPS case: The existence of another NDPS FIR was considered, but the Court also noted that the accused had already obtained bail in that matter.

Broader legal significance: The judgment underscores that statutory classification of seized material can have a direct impact on the applicability of Section 37 and consequently on the consideration of bail.

Limited precedent effect on merits: Since the Court expressly confined its observations to the bail stage, the ruling does not finally determine whether the accused committed the offences alleged against him.