Facts
The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p.1-2He was arrested on 07.12.2024 in connection with Crime No. 1004/2024 involving the seizure of 150 narcotic ampoules (Buprenorphine and Rexogesic) from co-accused Srishti and Godavari Bai.
Source reference: p.1-2The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on 06.11.2025 due to a criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act.
Source reference: p.2The applicant argued for parity, noting that other co-accused had been granted bail by the High Court and Supreme Court, and claimed he was falsely implicated while already in custody for another matter.
Source reference: p.2-3The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s status as a habitual offender.
Source reference: p.3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity and the nature of the seized quantity, despite being a habitual offender with a pending NDPS case.
Source reference: p.3-4Law Applied
The Court applied Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Source reference: p.1It further relied on the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which dictates that bail may be denied or cancelled if the accused has significant previous criminal antecedents.
Source reference: p.3-4The procedural framework was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p.1Reasoning
The Court observed that this was the applicant’s second attempt at seeking bail and that no new grounds had been raised since the first rejection.
Source reference: p.2Although the applicant argued that the contraband was less than commercial quantity and cited the release of co-accused persons on parity, the Court prioritized his criminal history.
Source reference: p.3Applying the logic from Deepak Yadav, the Court reasoned that the applicant’s existing antecedent under the NDPS Act classifies him as a habitual offender.
Source reference: p.3-4The existence of a pending trial for a similar offence outweighed the arguments for parity and the duration of his judicial custody.
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the applicant is not a fit candidate for regular bail due to his status as a habitual offender.
The second bail application was rejected.
Source reference: p.4The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
SHEKH JAVEDvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in