Bail under the NDPS Act granted on parity absent recovery from the accused.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 172/2025 registered at Police Station Kumhari, District Durg, for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that, on 07.09.2025, the police intercepted a container vehicle transporting contraband and recovered approximately 388 kilograms of ganja. Co-accused Umesh Yadav was arrested in connection with the seizure.

The applicant contended that he was not present at the spot, no contraband was recovered from his possession or at his instance, he was not named in the FIR, and the vehicle was not owned by him.

The applicant also submitted that he had no criminal antecedents and relied on the Supreme Court’s order granting bail to co-accused Md. Fayyaz in the same matter.

Whether the applicant, against whom there was no recovery of contraband from his possession or at his instance, was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a case involving commercial-quantity contraband under the NDPS Act?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Md. Fayyaz, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court in the same crime?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, in the context of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 27-A of the NDPS Act.

The Court considered the absence of recovery from the applicant’s possession or at his instance, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the principle of parity arising from the Supreme Court’s grant of bail to a co-accused in the same case.

No separate judicial precedent was cited in the order.

Bail was granted subject to conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court found that the material against the applicant did not include any recovery of contraband from his possession or pursuant to information supplied by him.

The applicant was also not alleged to have been present at the place of seizure, was not named in the FIR, had no criminal antecedents, and was not the owner of the vehicle from which the ganja was recovered.

In addition, the Supreme Court had granted bail to co-accused Md. Fayyaz in the same crime, and the State did not dispute that fact.

Considering these circumstances cumulatively, particularly the absence of recovery and the applicant’s claim of parity, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail despite the serious NDPS offences alleged.

The Court directed that Shahid Ahmed be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.