Supreme Court Denies Biswanath Mandal Anticipatory Bail Ganja NDPS

• The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to Biswanath Mandal, who is accused in an NDPS case involving 252.330 kg of ganja.
• Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale orally observed that the Court takes a "very liberal" approach to regular bail in ganja cases under the NDPS Act, 1985.
• Mandal's plea was rejected despite his arguments disputing ownership of the premises where the ganja was found and claiming no direct recovery from him.
• The Court advised Mandal to surrender and apply for regular bail, stating that the ownership dispute was a matter for investigation.
• The Calcutta High Court had previously rejected Mandal's anticipatory bail application on February 13, 2026, citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the significant legal challenges associated with securing anticipatory bail under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly when large quantities of contraband are involved.

The Supreme Court recently declined to grant anticipatory bail to Biswanath Mandal, a West Bengal resident implicated in an NDPS case involving a substantial alleged seizure of ganja. The case centers on the reported recovery of 252.330 kilograms of ganja, contained within 15 packets, from a property located in Rajpur, Bairati. This decision by the apex court comes after the Calcutta High Court had previously rejected Mandal's application for anticipatory bail on February 13, 2026, in connection with an FIR lodged at the Kotwali Police Station in Cooch Behar.

Mandal's legal team presented several arguments before the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale. They contended that Mandal was not present at the site during the search and seizure operation. Crucially, his counsel disputed the prosecution's assertion of his ownership over the premises, highlighting the absence of any supporting documentation such as title deeds, revenue or municipal records, utility bills, or rent receipts that would establish his possession or control. Furthermore, it was argued that no contraband was recovered directly from Mandal, nor was there independent evidence linking him to conscious possession or participation in the alleged narcotics offense. The petitioner also pointed out that his co-accused, identified as his second wife, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.

Despite the Supreme Court's ultimate denial of anticipatory bail in Mandal's specific case, the bench made a notable oral observation on September 16 regarding its general approach to bail in ganja-related matters under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Justices Sundresh and Varale stated that the Court adopts a "very liberal" stance when considering regular bail pleas for ganja offenses. The judges explicitly conveyed to 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."

This declaration, however, did not translate into immediate relief for Mandal's anticipatory bail request. The Court suggested that if a lower court were to reject Mandal’s application for regular bail, he could then approach the Supreme Court. When pressed on the ownership dispute, the bench indicated that this was a factual matter requiring further investigation. The Justices also dismissed the application of a previous Supreme Court judgment cited by Mandal's petitioner, stating that its applicability depended on its specific factual context. Ultimately, the Supreme Court denies Biswanath Mandal anticipatory bail for the ganja NDPS charges, advising him to surrender and seek regular bail instead.

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the significant legal challenges associated with securing anticipatory bail under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly when large quantities of contraband are involved. The Calcutta High Court, in its earlier rejection of Mandal's plea, had already highlighted the difficulties, concluding that he could not entirely distance himself from the premises and treating him as its owner, while also referencing the strictures of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This section imposes severe restrictions on bail for certain offenses, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

The Supreme Court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail, even while expressing a "liberal" view on regular bail for ganja cases, illustrates a critical distinction. The bench's insistence that the ownership dispute was a matter for investigation suggests that in cases where fundamental facts linking an accused to the offense are contested, anticipatory bail may be difficult to obtain. This approach reinforces that the "liberal" observation regarding ganja bail may not extend to anticipatory bail applications, especially when the alleged quantity is substantial and factual ambiguities, such as property ownership, need to be resolved through a full investigation. The ruling emphasizes the importance of factual specifics and the procedural differences between anticipatory and regular bail in NDPS cases.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note that despite the Supreme Court's oral observation about a 'very liberal' approach to ganja bail, anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act, especially for large quantities or where factual disputes like property ownership arise, remains challenging. This ruling underscores that the 'liberal' stance may not extend to anticipatory bail applications and emphasizes the importance of factual specifics and the distinction between anticipatory and regular bail in NDPS cases.

Source: Reporting based on recent Supreme Court proceedings.