Habitual offender with extensive criminal antecedents is disentitled to regular bail under NDPS Act.

The applicant was arrested on January 29, 2026, following a search based on secret information that allegedly found him in possession of 5 kgs of Ganja

Consequently, an offense was registered under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that he was falsely implicated, mandatory search and seizure provisions were not followed, and the trial would be prolonged

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s seven criminal antecedents, which include one prior NDPS offense (2025), four Excise Act offenses (2020–2025), and two IPC offenses (2022)

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of his criminal history and the nature of the current offense under the NDPS Act

The Court considered the provisions for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) and the penal provisions of Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985

It primarily relied on the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which underscores that the presence of previous criminal antecedents is a significant factor in denying bail as it reflects the risk of the accused misusing liberty

The Court examined the applicant's criminal profile, noting that he is a "habitual offender" with seven distinct criminal cases registered against him between 2020 and 2025

The Court reasoned that these antecedents, particularly the prior NDPS and Excise Act violations, demonstrate that the applicant has previously misused the liberty of bail granted to him

Although a charge-sheet has already been filed, the Court found that the applicant's propensity for recidivism outweighed the arguments for his release

By applying the rationale from Deepak Yadav, the Court determined that the applicant did not meet the criteria for discretionary relief

The Court held that the applicant’s status as a habitual offender and his history of misusing bail rendered this an unfit case for regular bail

However, the Court granted the trial court liberty to conclude the proceedings expeditiously

directed the office to communicate this order to the lower court for compliance