Bail granted in commercial-quantity NDPS prosecution on parity with co-accused and prolonged trial custody.

On 8 January 2025, acting on secret information, the police intercepted a Hero Super Splendor motorcycle allegedly piloting a white Swift car near Village Mudpar. The applicant, Vijay Kumar Kenwat, and co-accused Krishna Kumar Kahra were found on the motorcycle, while three other co-accused were travelling in the Swift car. A search of the car allegedly resulted in the seizure of 45 packets containing 45.780 kg of ganja, concealed in its dickey. The applicant was arrested on 9 January 2025 and was prosecuted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The charge-sheet had been filed; the applicant had no criminal antecedents; and, out of 28 prosecution witnesses, 9 had been examined when the bail application was considered. The co-accused Krishna Kumar Kahra, whose bail application had earlier been rejected by the High Court, was subsequently granted bail by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 8403 of 2026.

Whether the applicant, accused of involvement in the transportation and possession of 45.780 kg of ganja, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the quantity being above the commercial quantity.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Krishna Kumar Kahra, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, which penalises possession or transportation of cannabis in a commercial quantity. The Court recognised that the alleged recovery of 45.780 kg of ganja was substantially above the commercial quantity and therefore involved the stringent considerations applicable to NDPS offences.

It further applied the principle of parity, under which an accused whose case is materially similar to that of a co-accused granted bail may ordinarily claim similar relief, subject to the facts of the individual case. The Court also considered prolonged pre-trial custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely delay in trial as relevant bail considerations.

Although the alleged contraband was of commercial quantity, the Court found that the applicant’s case was similar to that of co-accused Krishna Kumar Kahra, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court after the High Court had initially rejected his bail application.

The Court also took into account that the alleged contraband was recovered from the Swift car rather than directly from the applicant, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and that he had remained in custody since 9 January 2025.

Since only 9 of 28 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the Court considered that the trial was likely to take further time. On the combined basis of parity, length of custody, the stage of trial, and the absence of further necessity for custodial detention, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, without expressing any final opinion on the merits.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when prosecution witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court further directed the trial court to endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from receipt of the certified order, if there was no legal impediment.