Bail based on parity cannot be granted under the NDPS Act if Section 37 rigours are not satisfied.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act following the recovery of 197 grams of heroin (commercial quantity)

Procedurally, the petitioner had previously been granted medical bail, followed by a default bail that was subsequently challenged

Following a High Court dismissal of his petition (CRM(M) No. 236/2022) and an order for his arrest, he was re-arrested on March 4, 2025

He sought regular bail before the Special Judge (NDPS) Srinagar, which was rejected on April 4, 2025, on the grounds of the statutory rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The petitioner moved the High Court challenging this rejection, citing a lack of evidence and seeking parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail

1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail involving commercial quantities of contraband under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity because a co-accused was previously released

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which mandates that for offenses involving commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail

State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) and Union of India v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022) to establish that these statutory limitations are mandatory and a liberal approach is unwarranted

Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (2010) and Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), holding that parity is not a matter of right and cannot override the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act

The court determined that the physical recovery of 197 grams of heroin established a strong prima facie case against the petitioner, thereby failing the first limb of the Section 37 "twin test"—the requirement for "reasonable grounds" to believe in his innocence

The court rejected the argument for parity, noting that the petitioner's situation was unique: he had originally been granted medical bail, and the co-accused had then claimed parity with him to get regular bail; the court characterized the petitioner’s attempt to now claim parity back from that co-accused as a "strange story"

The court emphasized that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, the rigors of Section 37 override general principles of parity

It held that the mandatory conditions of Section 37 were not fulfilled and that there was no substantial change in circumstances since the previous rejection by the trial court. The court directed the scanned records to be returned to the trial court for further proceedings