Absence of conscious possession and parity with co-accused justify bail under NDPS Act despite criminal antecedents.

On September 14, 2024, police intercepted a vehicle based on an informant's tip and recovered 54 Rexogesic ampoules from a co-accused, Amit Thakur

The applicant was subsequently implicated in the crime based on a memorandum statement recorded on January 24, 2025

No narcotic substances were recovered from the applicant’s person; the police only seized a cheque book, an ATM card, and a mobile phone from him

The applicant has been in custody since March 7, 2025

The prosecution cited 11 previous criminal antecedents against the applicant, though he had been acquitted in all of them

Several co-accused persons, including Kajal Kurre, Anjali Gendle, and Naveen Idwani, had already been granted bail by the High Court or the Supreme Court

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the lack of conscious possession and the grant of bail to co-accused persons on the principle of parity

The court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail

It applied the provisions of Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act concerning illegal possession and conspiracy, and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court further relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, acknowledging that similarly situated co-accused had been granted relief by higher or coordinate benches

The court observed that the alleged narcotic substance was not recovered from the applicant’s conscious possession but from a co-accused

It noted that the applicant's involvement was based primarily on a memorandum statement, and the prosecution failed to produce Call Detail Records (CDR) or mobile data establishing a connection between the applicant and other accused persons

Although the applicant had 11 previous criminal antecedents, the court emphasized his acquittal in all those matters

Regarding the trial's progress, the court found that only two out of thirty prosecution witnesses had been examined, suggesting that the trial would not conclude in the near future

Consequently, the court determined that the applicant was entitled to bail based on the lack of incriminating circumstantial evidence and the principle of parity with co-accused who were already released

The holding clarified that the lack of conscious possession, coupled with the slow progress of the trial and the acquittal in previous cases, warranted the applicant's release

The court imposed specific conditions, including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and a requirement to appear personally for key trial stages like the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS