Grant of parity-based bail for commercial quantity NDPS offence citing prolonged detention and co-accused’s release.

The applicant was arrested on August 4, 2022, following a secret information report alleging that 23 kg 100 grams of ganja (cannabis) was seized from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused while traveling on a motorcycle.

The case was registered under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Police Station Darbha.

The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused (Banmali Baghel) who was granted bail on June 19, 2023, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, and the prolonged nature of the trial, noting that only 8 out of 18 witnesses had been examined after nearly four years of custody.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the duration of pretrial detention.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which pertains to the possession of commercial quantities of contraband.

The court adhered to the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence and the constitutional considerations regarding the right to a speedy trial versus prolonged incarceration during the pendency of a trial.

Procedural conditions for bail were framed with reference to Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS.

The court evaluated the competing interests of the State's opposition—based on the commercial quantity of the seizure—against the applicant's prolonged detention since August 2022.

The court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the applicant had no prior criminal record.

A significant factor in the court's reasoning was the grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused, Banmali Baghel, by a coordinate Bench in MCRC No. 1073/2023.

Applying the logic that the trial's conclusion was not imminent (with 10 witnesses still to be examined), the court determined that continued incarceration would be inequitable, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence at trial.

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to release based on parity, the lack of criminal antecedents, and the length of time already served in jail.

The release was conditioned upon a personal bond with two local sureties and strict undertakings, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments and a requirement for personal appearance at key trial stages.