Court Grants Bail Based on Parity with Co-Accused Released by Supreme Court in Commercial Quantity NDPS Case

The applicant, Shri Ram Kurre, was arrested on May 21, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 53/2025

Police intercepted a vehicle based on secret information and recovered a total of 45 kg of ganja (commercial quantity) from the joint possession of four occupants, including the applicant

The applicant sought regular bail, contending that only 8 kg was allegedly recovered from his individual possession—an amount less than the commercial quantity—and that he had no prior criminal record

He further sought parity with a co-accused, Monu Kushwaha, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court after his initial application was rejected by the High Court

The State opposed the bail, citing the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to the total quantity seized from the vehicle

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the specific quantity attributed to him and the principle of parity with a co-accused granted bail by the Supreme Court

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

Mandatory compliance requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act

Restrictive bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which apply to commercial quantities of contraband

Principle of parity based on the Supreme Court’s order in SLP (CRL.) No. 2949/2026

The Court observed that while the total seizure (45 kg) was a commercial quantity, the specific allegation against the applicant involved 8 kg of ganja, which falls below the threshold for a commercial quantity

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed

Significantly, the Court found the applicant’s case to be "similar" to that of co-accused Monu Kushwaha, who had been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after a previous rejection by the High Court

The Court further reasoned that since the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the rigors for denying bail were mitigated in the interest of justice

The holding was based on the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, the non-commercial quantity attributed to him individually, and the principle of parity with the co-accused

The release was made subject to a personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments and a mandate for personal appearance during key trial stages

Failure to comply with these conditions would authorize the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty