Habitual offenders with unexplained criminal antecedents are ineligible for bail despite lack of direct contraband recovery.

The applicant, a resident of Odisha, was arrested following a police raid on 13.07.2025 at the Rajnandgaon Railway Station based on secret information regarding the sale of contraband.

While 199 tablets were seized from co-accused Neel Gidwani, the applicant was implicated based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, arguing that no recovery was made from his possession, parity with other bailed co-accused, and that he had been in custody since 14.07.2025.

The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the applicant has 12 criminal antecedents in Odisha, only 8 of which were disclosed in his application.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite a significant history of criminal antecedents.

Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding regular bail.

The precedent established in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which mandates that the criminal antecedents of an accused are a critical factor in determining the grant or cancellation of bail.

The Court perused the case diary and evaluated the applicant's conduct against the legal standards for bail.

Although the applicant argued for parity and noted the lack of direct recovery, the Court placed heavy weight on his criminal history. Specifically, it noted that the applicant is a habitual offender with 12 criminal cases in Odisha, four of which remained unexplained in his bail application.

Applying the logic from Deepak Yadav, the Court reasoned that the applicant’s history of involvement in various offenses outweighed the factors favoring bail, such as the duration of his pretrial detention or the filing of the charge sheet.

The bail application was rejected, and the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information.