Absence of Reasoned Satisfaction under Section 37 NDPS Act Precludes Plea of Parity for Bail.

The petitioner, Buna Kanhar, filed an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Phulbani Sadar PS Case No. 07 of 2025

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused persons, was transporting 34 kgs of contraband Ganja (a commercial quantity) in a Maruti Swift car

The petitioner argued for parity, noting that co-accused Balakrushna Kanhar had been granted bail

The State opposed the plea, highlighting that the petitioner was also implicated in another similar case (Phulbani Sadar P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025) involving commercial quantities of Ganja

1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite his involvement in a subsequent similar offence

2. Whether the principle of parity applies if the order granting bail to a co-accused does not record the satisfaction of conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that for offences involving commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail

Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, which established that recording satisfaction of Section 37 conditions is sine qua non for granting bail in such cases

Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, regarding the weight of incriminating statements and the role of organizers in illicit trade

The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Specifically, his alleged involvement in a second case of a similar nature (Case No. 163 of 2025) was deemed indicative of his inability to show he is unlikely to commit further offences while on bail

Regarding parity, the Court observed that the co-accused’s bail order lacked any discussion or recording of the satisfaction of Section 37 conditions; per Satpal Singh, such an order does not constitute a binding precedent for granting bail to others

Finally, the Court noted that the charge sheet identified the petitioner as an absconder and that witnesses were yet to be examined, further weakening the case for his release

It held that the mandatory conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met, and the plea of parity was not available where the previous order failed to demonstrate statutory satisfaction.

The bail application was dismissed