Bail granted on parity where co-accused were enlarged on bail and trial would be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 166/2026 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, for offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 18.38 grams of heroin (“Chhitta”) from the joint possession of the applicant and other co-accused persons.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that the seizure memo was fabricated, and that similarly placed co-accused Prateek Singh, Khalid Khan, and Deepak Kosariya had already been granted bail.

He had been in custody since 23 July 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had acted in connivance with the co-accused.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail, along with consideration of his period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated delay in trial.

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

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning possession of a narcotic drug and criminal conspiracy or abetment, respectively.

In exercising its bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, likely delay in conclusion of trial, and the principle of parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that 18.38 grams of heroin had been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and the co-accused.

However, without expressing any opinion on the merits, it found the applicant’s case suitable for bail because the co-accused had already been granted regular bail, the applicant had remained in custody since 23 July 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court also considered that the trial was likely to take some time to conclude.

These factors, taken together, justified extending the benefit of bail under Section 483 BNSS, notwithstanding the State’s allegation of connivance.

The Court directed that Vijay Devraj be released on bail in Crime No. 166/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him to avoid unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, remain present before the trial court as directed, comply with proceedings arising from any failure to appear, and personally attend the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The Court directed that a certified copy of the order be supplied to the trial court for compliance.