Bail on parity granted where co-accused released due to trial delay under same circumstances.

The petitioner (A2) was arrested and remanded on 27.01.2023 for offenses involving the illegal import of 56.05 kgs of Marijuana/hydroponic weed (commercial quantity) under the NDPS Act

The contraband was concealed in a consignment of kitchen sinks imported using a license shared by the petitioner

A previous bail application was dismissed by the High Court on 20.08.2025 with a direction to the Trial Court to complete proceedings within six months

Subsequently, the co-accused (A1), who was denied bail by the same common order, was granted bail by the Supreme Court in SLP.No.18601/2025 on 23.02.2026

The Supreme Court cited long incarceration (over three years) and the failure of the trial court to comply with the six-month completion deadline (only 1 of 14 witnesses examined) as grounds for release

The petitioner now seeks bail on the ground of parity

1. Whether the petitioner (A2) is entitled to bail on the principle of parity following the release of the co-accused (A1) by the Supreme Court

2. Whether the role played by the petitioner was sufficiently distinct from the co-accused to preclude the application of parity

The Court primarily considered Section 483 of the BNSS regarding bail

the stringent provisions of Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 23, 28, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act

It applied the principle of parity as established in Ashpak Basha Makandar v. State of Maharashtra (2026)

It further considered the limitations on parity established in Sagar v. State of UP & another (2025 INSC 1370) and Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese (2025 INSC 1316), which mandate that parity is not an absolute right but must focus on the specific role of the accused

The Court observed that the initial dismissal of bail for both A1 and A2 was based on identical grounds: the involvement of a commercial quantity and the direction for a speedy trial

The Supreme Court's intervention for A1 was prompted by the "laxity of the respondent" in examining witnesses and the non-compliance with the High Court’s timeline

In evaluating the Respondent’s argument that roles differed, the Court found that the gravity of allegations and the nature of involvement for both A1 and A2 were substantially similar according to the FIR

The Court reasoned that since the grounds for dismissal were identical and the subsequent change in circumstances (trial delay and long incarceration) applied equally to both, the petitioner stood on the "same footing" as A1

Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of parity despite the commercial quantity involved

The Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties

Specific conditions were imposed, including daily reporting to the Trial Court for three weeks, surrender of passport, and a stipulation that absconding would trigger a fresh FIR under Section 269 of the BNS