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.4Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19853
Original Court PDF
SHEKH JAVEDvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
