Bail granted on parity where individual seizures from multiple accused fall below commercial quantity.

On August 21, 2025, police acted on secret information and seized 28.16 grams of heroin from the applicant near Mor Garden.

Based on the applicant's memorandum statement, a further 105.33 grams was recovered from his residence.

Additional quantities were seized from co-accused individuals (Divya Jain, Vijay Motwani, Nitin Patel, and Harpreet Kaur), totaling 281.67 grams across all parties.

The applicant was charged under Sections 21(B), 21(C), 29, and 27(A) of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant sought regular bail, citing ten months of pre-trial detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that five other co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, particularly on the grounds of parity with co-accused and the quantity of the seizure.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It considered the classifications of quantities under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, specifically differentiating between "less than commercial quantity" and "commercial quantity" for the purpose of bail eligibility.

Furthermore, the Court relied on the principle of parity, which mandates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of relief.

It also referenced procedural conduct requirements under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS.

The Court observed that while the total recovery from all accused was 281.67 grams, the amount recovered from the applicant’s individual possession and residence was less than the "commercial quantity" threshold.

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence during the remainder of the trial.

Crucially, the Court applied the doctrine of parity, finding that the applicant’s case stood on a similar footing to five co-accused (Jaspreet Kaur, Harpreet Kaur, Divya Jain, Nitin Patel, and Harsh Rathi) who had already been granted bail between March and June 2026.

The lack of prior criminal antecedents and the duration of the applicant's detention (ten months) further inclined the Court toward a favorable ruling.

The Court held that since the applicant was similarly situated to the co-accused already on bail and no commercial quantity was seized from his exclusive possession, he deserved the same relief.

The grant of bail was made subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments (violation of which constitutes abuse of liberty), must attend all trial dates per Section 269 of BNS, and must appear personally for crucial trial milestones such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.