Bail granted to NDPS accused on parity where co-accused was released and prosecution evidence had not begun.

The petitioners, Sarojini Barada @ Ranu @ Niba and Bijay Behera @ Biju, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in Itamati P.S. Case No. 220 of 2026, corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 53 of 2026, pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nayagarh.

They were accused under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the allegation that they jointly possessed 6.20 grams of brown sugar along with other co-accused persons.

Although each petitioner had one criminal antecedent and the State opposed bail, co-accused Firoj Ahmed Khan @ Firoj Khan had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the High Court.

Charges had been framed against the petitioners, but the prosecution witnesses had not yet been examined.

The petitioners had remained in custody since 22 June 2026; the Court also noted that petitioner Sarojini Barada was a woman.

1. Whether the petitioners should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offences alleged under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act?

2. Whether the grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused, the stage of the trial, the period of custody, the presumption of innocence, and the status of one petitioner as a woman justified the grant of bail despite the petitioners’ criminal antecedents?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases, and considered the offences alleged under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act concerning possession of a narcotic substance and abetment or criminal conspiracy.

The Court relied on the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench.

It also applied the presumption of innocence, recognised the accused’s entitlement to liberty pending trial, and considered the stage of proceedings, duration of pre-trial detention, and likelihood of delay in examination of witnesses.

In relation to petitioner Sarojini Barada, the Court applied the proviso to Section 480 of the BNSS, which permits consideration of the special circumstance that the accused is a woman while deciding bail.

The Court found that bail was warranted after assessing the circumstances cumulatively.

Although the State relied on the petitioners’ individual criminal antecedents, the Court considered the fact that the similarly placed co-accused had already been released on bail, supporting parity.

The charge had already been framed, but the witnesses had not yet been examined, indicating that the trial would continue and that the petitioners had undergone pre-trial detention since 22 June 2026.

The Court further recognised the petitioners’ presumed innocence until conviction and, in the case of Sarojini Barada, gave additional consideration to her status as a woman under the proviso to Section 480 of the BNSS.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that the overall circumstances justified release on bail.

The BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.