Bail granted for intermediate quantity of contraband where applicant lacks criminal antecedents and co-accused has been paroled.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

On 06.03.2026, police intercepted the applicant and co-accused Jeevdhan Paikra, allegedly recovering 9.990 kg of Ganja.

The applicant was arrested and charged under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The applicant contended false implication, lack of exclusive possession, procedural non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding search warrants, and parity with a co-accused who was granted bail.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's alleged conspiracy in transporting the contraband.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the quantity of contraband seized and the principle of parity.

Section 483 of the BNSS governing regular bail provisions and Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act regarding the possession and conspiracy of Ganja.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving "commercial quantities" (defined as more than 20 kgs for Ganja).

The principles of parity in judicial orders and the right to liberty pending a prolonged trial.

The Court observed that the seized quantity of 9.990 kg of Ganja falls under "intermediate quantity," being above small quantity but significantly below the 20 kg threshold for commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

Consequently, the rigorous "twin conditions" for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.

The Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 06.03.2026.

Crucially, the Court applied the rule of parity as a similarly situated co-accused, Parmeshwar Dewangan, had already been granted bail in MCRC No. 5300 of 2026.

Given that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial was likely to take a considerable amount of time, the Court found no justification for further pretrial detention.

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: (i) non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, (ii) mandatory presence at trial, and (iii) strict appearance during framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court held that since the quantity was intermediate and a co-accused was already at liberty, the applicant was entitled to bail.