Bail granted for recovery of intermediate quantity heroin as incarceration is not warranted pending trial.

The applicant, Arshad Khan, was arrested on January 17, 2026, following a police interception behind MES School, Susner.

Upon a personal search, 10.42 grams of smack (narcotic contraband) was allegedly recovered from him, while 10.18 grams were recovered from co-accused Raja.

The applicant was charged under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant contended false implication based on suspicion and non-compliance with search and seizure procedures.

Following the completion of the investigation and filing of the final report, the applicant sought bail on grounds of parity with the co-accused and his socio-economic status.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the quantity of contraband seized and the period of incarceration.

2. Whether the existence of two criminal antecedents is sufficient to deny bail when the applicant has no prior convictions and the trial is expected to take time.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.), which governs the special powers of the High Court regarding bail.

It adhered to the principles of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, specifically regarding the recovery of contraband under Sections 8, 21, and 29.

Furthermore, the court considered the principle of parity in bail, noting that co-accused Raja had already been granted bail.

It also balanced the gravity of the offence against the applicant's right to liberty, his socio-economic background, and the lack of previous convictions for major offences.

The Court evaluated the prosecution's claim that the applicant was in conscious possession of the contraband against the applicant’s defense that due procedure for search and seizure was not followed.

The Court noted that the veracity of the search and seizure is a matter of trial.

While the State opposed bail citing two criminal antecedents, the Court observed that those matters are still pending and the applicant lacks a "substantial criminal past" or previous major convictions.

Significant weight was given to the fact that the investigation was complete, the final report had been filed, and the trial would likely be protracted.

The Court determined that the applicant, a 23-year-old laborer with family responsibilities, was unlikely to flee or tamper with evidence.

Consequently, the Court found no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration.

The Court held that the applicant must comply with specific conditions, including attending all hearing dates, refraining from similar offences, not tampering with evidence, and marking his presence at the Police Station every Wednesday until the trial concludes.