Commercial quantity recovery precludes bail parity with co-accused possessing sub-commercial quantities under NDPS Act.

The applicant, Krishna Yadav, was arrested on May 22, 2025, near Village Selud, Durg, following a police tip-off alleging the sale of contraband drugs

Authorities seized 960 capsules of Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride, and Acetaminophen (weighing 614.4 grams) and 30 Alprazolam tablets (weighing 3.6 grams) from his possession

Consequently, Crime No. 198/2025 was registered under the NDPS Act, and a charge-sheet was filed on July 21, 2025

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 7771/2025) was rejected on merits on September 25, 2025

This second bail application was moved on grounds of parity with four co-accused who had been granted bail and the slow progress of the trial, noting that only three out of 20 witnesses had been examined

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail based on the principle of parity with co-accused and the current status of the trial proceedings

Whether the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband precludes the grant of bail despite the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It further interpreted Sections 8, 22(A), and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

The court adhered to the principle that parity in bail is not applicable when the quantity of contraband seized from the applicant exceeds the "commercial quantity" threshold, creating a distinct legal footing from co-accused from whom "below commercial quantity" was recovered

The court reasoned that the applicant’s case could not be equated with that of the co-accused.

While the co-accused were granted bail because the contraband seized from them was below the commercial quantity, the applicant was found in possession of narcotics significantly exceeding the commercial threshold

The court noted that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the possession of such a large quantity, reinforcing the earlier rejection on merits and negating claims of false implication

Although the court acknowledged the slow progress of the trial—noting the examination of only three out of 20 witnesses—it determined that the gravity of the offense and the quantity of the seized substances outweighed the procedural delay and the applicant's lack of prior criminal records

The court held that the applicant stood on a different footing than the co-accused due to the commercial quantity of the contraband involved

The court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously, ideally within six months from the date of receipt of the order, provided there is no legal impediment