Grant of parity in bail for NDPS offence based on Supreme Court order and prolonged pretrial detention.

On June 6, 2024, the applicant was traveling in a Tata Mini Truck (CG07-CM-2874) alongside co-accused Dinesh Dahariya and Shiv Kumar Tandan.

During a vehicle check at Nandani–Jamul Road, police recovered 150 kg of Ganja, packed in 150 packets, from the vehicle.

The applicant was arrested and charged under Sections 20(b) and 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The applicant moved this first bail application before the High Court, citing that a co-accused (Dinesh Dahariya) had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) No. 21266/2025.

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 applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail.

It also considered the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Sections 20(b) and 21(C).

The court relied on the principle of parity, as the Supreme Court had previously granted bail to a similarly situated co-accused despite the commercial quantity involved.

Furthermore, the court adhered to the principle that prolonged incarceration without the commencement of witness examination (Trial Delay) justifies bail.

The court observed that the applicant had been in custody since June 6, 2024, and had no prior criminal record.

Although charges were framed on January 9, 2026, the court noted that none of the 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined to date, indicating that the trial would take considerable time.

Crucially, the court found that while it had previously rejected the bail of co-accused Dinesh Dahariya, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had subsequently granted him relief.

By applying the logic of the Apex Court’s intervention and noting the lack of progress in the trial, the court determined that the applicant met the criteria for release despite the gravity of the charges.

The holding was predicated on parity with the co-accused and the slow pace of the trial.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: mandatory presence at all trial dates (opening of case, framing of charges, and statement recording under Section 351 BNSS), no seeking of unnecessary adjournments, and strictly following the provisions of Section 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in case of default.