Calcutta High Court Orders Bail in 3 kg Ganja Seizure at Airport: A Structured Summary

Background of the Case

In Anil Chauhan Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court), the Calcutta High Court dealt with a bail application filed by an assessee who was allegedly found in possession of 3 kg of ganja at an airport. The case arose under the provisions of the NDPS Act, and the matter was placed before the Special Court at Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

The assessee had already spent 174 days in custody, and during this period a formal complaint had been lodged before the jurisdictional court. On this factual basis, the assessee moved the High Court seeking release on bail.

Representation Before the Court

At the stage of hearing the bail application:

  • It was brought to the notice of the Court that no one appeared on behalf of the Air Customs Authority.
  • In view of this absence, the Court requested Mr. Vipul Kundalia and Mr. Tapan Bhanja to appear and represent the concerned authorities.
  • The Court also observed that their engagement/appointment may be formalized by the competent authority in due course.

On the other side, counsel for the Union of India opposed the plea for bail, urging that the assessee should continue in custody.

Consideration by the High Court

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

The High Court placed significant reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in:

Barnali Bag –Vs– Union of India (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3641 of 2026)

In this precedent, the Apex Court is noted to have placed emphasis on the quantity of the contraband seized while considering questions of continued custody and bail under the NDPS framework.

Taking note of this principle, the Calcutta High Court evaluated:

  • The quantity of ganja allegedly recovered: 3 kg
  • The duration of custody already undergone: 174 days
  • The fact that a complaint had already been filed by the prosecuting authority before the appropriate court

Court’s Opinion on Continued Detention

After considering the above, the High Court expressed the view that:

  • In light of the parameters highlighted by the Supreme Court in Barnali Bag –Vs– Union of India,
  • And looking specifically at the seizure quantity and period of incarceration,

Further detention of the assessee was not warranted.

Accordingly, the Court decided that the bail application deserved to be allowed subject to stringent conditions.