Hostile seizure witnesses and parity claims do not warrant bail for a habitual NDPS offender.

The applicant, Ajay Sahu, was arrested on January 14, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 12/2026 at Police Station Fingeshwar for the alleged possession of 19.423 kg of Ganja (cannabis) found in a vehicle.

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 2553/2026) was rejected on April 29, 2026, due to his criminal antecedents under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The applicant filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending that independent seizure witnesses had turned hostile and that a co-accused had been granted bail.

1. Whether the hostility of independent seizure witnesses during the trial constitutes a material change in circumstances justifying the grant of bail in an NDPS matter.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail despite possessing a criminal history of similar offenses under the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act regarding the possession of contraband and Section 483 of the BNSS regarding bail.

It strictly adhered to the principle that a second bail application requires a "substantial change in circumstances".

The court relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which establishes that previous criminal antecedents are a valid ground for the cancellation or denial of bail, especially if the accused is a habitual offender.

The court reasoned that no material change in circumstances existed to warrant a departure from the previous rejection.

It dismissed the applicant’s argument regarding hostile witnesses, noting that the evidentiary value of official (police) witnesses remains to be tested at trial and their testimony alone can sustain a conviction.

Furthermore, the court observed that 19.423 kg of Ganja is a "substantial quantity" nearly reaching the commercial threshold.

Crucially, the court found the applicant to be a "habitual offender" who had misused previous liberty, as evidenced by a pending NDPS case, thereby failing the scrutiny required for bail in sensitive drug-related offenses.

It held that the hostility of seizure witnesses does not automatically demolish the prosecution’s case at the bail stage and that the applicant's status as a habitual offender precludes him from being enlarged on bail.

The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings, and the High Court Registry was ordered to communicate the refusal to the concerned trial court immediately.