New Delhi [India], September 16 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it is very liberal in granting bail in cases involving “ganja” (marijuana) while hearing a plea filed by a West Bengal man accused in an NDPS case involving the alleged recovery of 252.330 kg of ganja.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale verbally observed that accused persons can approach the Supreme Court for bail in such cases once their bail pleas are rejected by the lower court, implying the top courts’ relative leniency in matters involving Ganja.
“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. Get a dismissal and come here; we will give you bail,” the Court said.
The plea has been filed by Biswanath Mandal, challenging the Calcutta High Court’s February 13, 2026 order rejecting his application for anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered at Kotwali Police Station in Cooch Behar. The case 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 was carried out and that there was no recovery from him. He has also disputed the prosecution’s claim that he owned the house from where the contraband was allegedly recovered.
According to the plea, the investigation did not produce any title deed, revenue or municipal record, utility bill, rent receipt or other independent material to establish Mandals’ ownership, lawful possession or control over the premises of the said house. The plea further states that there was no recovery from Mandal, disclosure or statement by him, or independent evidence linking him to conscious possession or participation in the alleged narcotics trade.
The plea also points out that Mandal’s co-accused, described as his second wife, was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. It says the High Court, while granting her relief, had noted that no material had subsequently been recovered and custodial detention was not warranted. Mandal argues that a similar assessment was not undertaken in his case.
Mandal has argued 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 also relies on Supreme Court precedents to contend that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute bar on bail and that the statutory conditions have to be considered on the facts of each case.
The petitioner has also cited his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, absence of previous criminal antecedents and the fact that the investigation had substantially progressed, with the charge sheet already filed. He has contended that the prosecution had not demonstrated why his custodial interrogation was necessary.
Through the plea, Mandal seeks leave to appeal against the February 13 High Court order and appropriate relief in the matter. 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.  The accused Mandal is represented by Advocate Anish Roy.