Bail Granted on Grounds of Parity and Completion of Investigation despite Pending NDPS Antecedent

The applicant was arrested on January 3, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 1004/2024 at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur.

The prosecution alleged that on October 21, 2024, acting on secret information, police apprehended co-accused Srishti @ Moti, who implicated the applicant and others.

A total of 150 narcotic ampoules (including Buprenorphine and Rexogesic) were recovered.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing false implication, lack of exclusive possession, non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and parity with co-accused persons already granted bail.

The State opposed bail citing the recovery and the applicant’s six criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the principle of parity and his period of incarceration.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of High Courts and Sessions Courts to grant bail.

Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, regarding possession and conspiracy involving psychotropic substances.

The principle of parity based on the Supreme Court's order in Naveen Kumar Edwani v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 2026) and previous orders in Kajal Kurre (MCRC 4265/2025) and Sanjeev Kumar Chhabda (MCRC 8981/2025).

The Court balanced the gravity of the charges and the recovery of 150 narcotic ampoules against several mitigating factors.

It noted that the applicant had been in jail since January 3, 2025, and that the trial would likely be prolonged.

Although the applicant has six criminal antecedents, the Court observed that he had been acquitted in three, two were settled with fines, and only one other NDPS case remains pending.

The Court invoked the rule of parity, noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court had already granted bail to co-accused individuals (Naveen Kumar Edwani, Kajal Kurre, and Sanjeev Kumar Chhabda) in the same crime number.

Consequently, since the charge-sheet had already been filed, the Court found the applicant eligible for release.

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including: (i) not seeking adjournments during evidence, (ii) appearing on all trial dates as per Section 269 of the BNS, and (iii) appearing personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.