Bail granted for a below-commercial-quantity Tramadol seizure, with parity and no antecedents supporting release.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 204/2026, registered under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after police allegedly recovered a jointly carried bag containing 240 capsules of Pavion Spas Plus, weighing approximately 160.08 grams and containing Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen

In his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant relied on the alleged quantity being below commercial quantity, the filing of the charge-sheet, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the grant of bail to a co-accused.

The State opposed bail but did not dispute that the co-accused had been released on bail.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the circumstances of the alleged offence

Whether the co-accused’s release on bail, together with the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, completion of the investigation, and the alleged quantity being below commercial quantity, supported granting bail

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was the provision under which the applicant was charged.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, parity with a bailed co-accused, the applicant’s antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the quantity of contraband in relation to commercial quantity.

The Court considered the prosecution’s allegation and the seriousness of the offence, but found the relevant circumstances cumulatively favoured release.

The co-accused had already been granted bail; the applicant had no criminal antecedents; the charge-sheet had been filed; and the alleged quantity was below commercial quantity.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair and expeditious trial, and requiring the applicant to attend each hearing until the trial’s disposal.