Bail granted in commercial-quantity NDPS case on parity, prolonged custody, and hostile seizure witness.

On 28 August 2025, during night patrolling and vehicle checking near Dansara Bypass, police chased and intercepted a car and a truck container near Nandeli Bypass Road.

A search of truck No. HR46 E-2249 allegedly resulted in the seizure of 29 packets containing 91.320 kilograms of ganja, concealed behind the driver’s seat and wrapped in khaki-coloured plastic tape.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 0437/2025 registered at Police Station Sarangarh for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed. The applicant remained in custody from 28 August 2025.

The applicant claimed that he was not in exclusive or conscious possession of the contraband, had no criminal antecedents, and was similarly situated to co-accused Shyam Babu Choudhary and Narayan Prasad Sahu, who had been granted bail.

It was also submitted that the seizure witness had turned hostile.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the alleged recovery of 91.320 kilograms of ganja in an offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with similarly situated co-accused who had been granted bail, along with prolonged custody, completion of investigation, and the seizure witness having turned hostile?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The prosecution allegations arose under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning possession of a commercial quantity of cannabis and criminal conspiracy or abetment.

In determining bail, the Court considered the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the applicant’s lack of reflected criminal antecedents, the hostile seizure witness, and the principle of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The Court also relied on the subsequent bail granted to co-accused Shyam Babu Choudhary by the Supreme Court and to Narayan Prasad Sahu by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 28 August 2025 and that the investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

Although the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity, the Court noted that similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail, including one by the Supreme Court, thereby supporting the applicant’s plea of parity.

The Court further considered that the seizure witness had turned hostile and that no criminal antecedent was reflected in the ICJS portal.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, these cumulative circumstances persuaded the Court that the applicant was entitled to regular bail.

The applicant was directed not to influence or threaten witnesses, not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.