Habitual offender status and pending NDPS antecedents justify denial of bail despite claims of parity.

On July 31, 2025, police in Sakri received secret information that the applicant and her son had procured ganja from Odisha

Upon conducting a raid, police intercepted a Baleno car and seized a total of 30 kilograms of ganja, out of which 15 kilograms were recovered from a bag belonging to the applicant

The applicant was arrested and charged under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending she was falsely implicated and seeking parity with a co-accused, Dileshwar Nayak, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's three criminal antecedents, including two pending cases under the NDPS Act

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of her criminal history and the nature of the seizure

Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The legal principle that criminal antecedents are a vital consideration in bail matters, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which underscores that habitual offenders may be denied bail to prevent the repetition of offenses

The Court examined the case diary and the applicant's history, noting that she has three criminal antecedents, specifically Crime No. 343/2025 and Crime No. 802/2023 under the NDPS Act

The Court reasoned that these pending cases prima facie establish the applicant as a "habitual offender"

The Court distinguished the applicant's situation from the co-accused who received bail from the Supreme Court, finding that the applicant's repeated involvement in drug-related offenses disentitled her to the same relief

By applying the doctrine from Deepak Yadav, the Court concluded that the propensity for recidivism and the seriousness of the charges outweighed the period of custody

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance