Grant of Bail on Parity Where Only Evidence is Inadmissible Disclosure Statement under NDPS Act.

The petitioner, an Ethiopian national, sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. VIII/74/DZU/2022 registered under Sections 8/21/23/29 of the NDPS Act

The prosecution case originated from the seizure of 4.98 kg of cocaine from a co-accused, Dipali, who implicated the petitioner in her statement, alleging he delivered contraband to her in Mumbai

Subsequent investigations led to the recovery of 2.055 kg of cocaine from another co-accused, Kelemuwa

The petitioner was implicated based on disclosure statements and the recovery of USD 3,500 from his possession

The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds of parity, as two co-accused with similar roles had been released, and the lack of admissible evidence

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity and the nature of the evidence currently on record

2. What conditions and custodial arrangements apply when a foreign national's visa has expired during the pendency of a bail application

The Court considered the stringent provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, specifically Sections 8, 21, 23, and 29 regarding the trafficking of commercial quantities of cocaine

The court applied the principle of Parity in bail jurisprudence, which mandates similar treatment for similarly situated accused persons

It further acknowledged the evidentiary limitation that disclosure statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are generally not considered "legally admissible evidence" at the stage of trial to sustain detention without independent corroboration

Finally, the Court applied administrative protocols regarding the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for foreign nationals residing without a valid visa

The Court observed that the primary evidence against the petitioner consisted of a disclosure statement and a recovery of currency (USD 3,500), noting that there was currently no "legally admissible evidence" to justify further detention

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the Respondent/NCB did not deny that two other co-accused, whose roles were identical to the petitioner, had already been granted bail

While the NCB argued that bail would hamper the "drug menace" crackdown, the Court found this insufficient to override the principle of parity

Because the petitioner’s visa had expired, the Court determined that his release could not be unconditional into society, but required a transition to the custody of the FRRO

The Court held that since the petitioner's visa had expired, the Jail Superintendent must hand over his custody directly to the FRRO upon the acceptance of the bail bond by the trial court