After Acquittal In His Only Other Case, Karnataka HC Grants Bail To NDPS Accused, Citing Co-Accused’s Bail In 23.6-Kg Ganja Case

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in the NDPS case, having regard to the similar allegations against Accused No. 3, who had been granted bail.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on bail in Special C.C. No. 2249/2025, subject to executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum and complying with conditions concerning court appearances, witnesses, future similar offences and travel outside the trial court’s jurisdiction.

01Facts

The petitioner, Accused No. 2, was arrested on 21 April 2025 in connection with Crime No. 29/2025, registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), and remained in judicial custody after his bail application before the trial court was rejected.

¶ 3

His earlier petition before the High Court was dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to renew his application after the disposal of a separate case against him; he was subsequently acquitted in that case, but the trial court again rejected his bail application.

¶ 3–4

The charge sheet alleged that 23 kg 645 g of ganja had been recovered from Accused Nos. 2 and 3, and that both had brought it at the instance of Accused No. 1.

¶ 6

Accused No. 3, against whom the charge-sheet allegations were similar, had been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench.

¶ 4, 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in the NDPS case, having regard to the similar allegations against Accused No. 3, who had been granted bail.

¶ 4, 6

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s acquittal in the other pending case, which had previously been a reason to defer consideration of bail, supported granting bail in this case.

¶ 4, 6

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶ 1

The prosecution case invoked Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

¶ 1, 3

The Court considered the similarity of the allegations against the petitioner and Accused No. 3, who had been granted bail, and the petitioner’s acquittal in the separate case; it cited no further statutory test or precedent in its reasoning.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 20

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the charge sheet contained similar allegations against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and that the latter had already been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench.

¶ 6

It also took account of the petitioner’s acquittal in the separate case, which had previously been the stated reason for postponing his renewed bail application.

¶ 4, 6

On those circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s request for bail should be allowed, subject to conditions.

¶ 6