Commercial-quantity recovery from exclusive possession, coupled with similar antecedents, warranted denial of NDPS bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act.

Police alleged that, on 22 February 2025, they seized 100 Buprenorphine ampoules, 100 Pheniramine Maleate vials, and 1,200 ml of Codeine Phosphate cough syrup from the applicant’s exclusive and conscious possession.

The applicant relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, his period in custody, and bail granted to two co-accused; the State opposed bail, citing the recovery and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The Court heard the parties and considered the case diary.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail despite the alleged recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from his exclusive possession and the resulting application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant could claim parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, and whether his criminal antecedents weighed against release.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent restrictions on bail in cases involving commercial quantity; the Court held that the alleged commercial-quantity recovery brought those restrictions into play.

Parity depends on the circumstances of the co-accused: bail granted where no recovery was made and the accused was implicated only through another accused’s statement does not establish parity with an accused from whom contraband was allegedly recovered.

The Court also relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, noting its consideration of previous antecedents in cancelling bail.

The Court found that the alleged contraband was well above commercial quantity and had been recovered from the applicant’s exclusive and conscious possession, distinguishing his case from those of the co-accused, against whom no recovery had been made.

It therefore rejected the parity argument.

Although the applicant disputed the number of his antecedents, the Court noted the State’s submission of five antecedents, including two of a similar nature, and considered the similar antecedents indicative of a risk of repeated offending.

In light of the recovery, the applicable rigour of Section 37, and the antecedents, the Court declined bail, also referring to Deepak Yadav.

It held that parity was unavailable and that the alleged commercial-quantity recovery from the applicant’s exclusive possession, together with the stated similar antecedents, did not warrant release on bail.