Bail on parity was denied because the applicant’s criminal antecedent materially distinguished his case from co-accused.

The applicant was arrested on 8 March 2025 in connection with Crime No. 58/2025 registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that a raid at an under-construction house resulted in the seizure of 22 kilograms of ganja, allegedly recovered in two separate quantities of 11 kilograms each from co-accused persons.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits on 6 October 2025. In the present second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, he relied principally on parity, asserting that co-accused Murli Yadav had been granted bail by the Supreme Court and co-accused Nandlal Yadav had subsequently been granted bail by the High Court.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a second bail application under Section 483 BNSS, notwithstanding the rejection of his first bail application on merits?

Whether the grant of bail to co-accused persons constituted a sufficient ground for extending parity to the applicant?

Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement in the recovery and transportation of commercial-quantity contraband, his criminal antecedent, and his having been shown as an absconder justified refusal of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, along with Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act concerning possession and criminal conspiracy relating to cannabis.

The Court also applied the principle that a subsequent bail application must be founded on a genuine change in circumstances or a legally sufficient new ground, and that parity is not automatic where the applicant’s factual position is materially different from that of the co-accused. Relying on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , (2022) 8 SCC 559, the Court considered previous criminal antecedents relevant to assessing entitlement to bail and the likelihood of misuse of liberty.

The Court found no sufficient ground to depart from the reasons underlying rejection of the first bail application. Those reasons included the alleged recovery of 22 kilograms of ganja, the seizure of multiple vehicles, forged number plates and mobile phones, the applicant’s prima facie connection with illegal transportation of contraband, and his being shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet.

The plea of parity was rejected because co-accused Murli Yadav, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, had no criminal antecedent, whereas the applicant had a pending NDPS-related criminal antecedent. The Court treated this distinction as material and considered the antecedent indicative of habitual offending and possible misuse of bail liberty. Consequently, the subsequent orders granting bail to co-accused persons did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances warranting bail to the applicant.

The trial court was permitted to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court.