A pending similar-offence antecedent defeats a claim of bail parity.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that 50 kilograms of ganja were recovered from a vehicle driven by a co-accused, and that the applicant was implicated during the investigation on the basis of co-accused statements.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits.

In this second application, he relied on the bail granted to a co-accused by the Supreme Court and submitted that no contraband had been seized from his possession.

The State opposed bail, noting the quantity involved and the applicant’s pending criminal antecedent of a similar nature.

1. Whether the applicant demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail after rejection of his first application.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was the procedural basis for the application for regular bail, and Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, was the provision under which the applicant was charged.

The Court assessed whether circumstances had materially changed since rejection of the earlier application and whether parity was available, taking into account the alleged quantity of contraband and the applicant’s criminal antecedent. The order does not cite or apply any precedent.

The Court found no substantial change in circumstances since the applicant’s first bail application had been rejected.

It considered the alleged recovery of 50 kilograms of ganja—described as much above the commercial quantity—and the applicant’s pending criminal antecedent of a similar nature.

Although the co-accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, the Court distinguished that case because the co-accused had no criminal antecedents.

It therefore held that parity did not justify granting bail to the applicant.