Hostile witnesses and medical grounds cannot override habitual criminality and past NDPS convictions in bail applications.

The applicant was arrested on 28.08.2025 in connection with Crime No. 470/2025 for allegedly possessing Ganja.

While 1.195 Kgs of the contraband were seized from a co-accused, Rs. 700/- (alleged sale proceeds) was recovered from the applicant.

The applicant filed this third bail application following the rejection of two previous applications (MCRC Nos. 8334/2025 and 979/2026) on 16.10.2025 and 29.01.2026.

The defense argued for bail on the grounds that the applicant is a heart patient, has been in jail for over six months, and key prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) have turned hostile.

The State opposed the plea, noting the applicant has five criminal antecedents, including two under the NDPS Act, one resulting in a conviction.

1. Whether the turning hostile of independent witnesses and the applicant’s medical condition constitute sufficient "new grounds" to grant bail in a third application under the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the applicant's status as a habitual offender with previous convictions precludes the grant of regular bail.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power to grant bail.

The court applied Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

It further relied on the precedent established in *Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another* (2022) 8 SCC 559, which held that bail can be denied or cancelled if the accused has a history of criminal antecedents and has misused the liberty of bail previously.

The Court observed that the previous bail applications were rejected on merits and the current grounds—specifically that independent witnesses turned hostile—do not suffice as a "new ground" for releasing the applicant on bail.

The Court emphasized the applicant’s criminal profile, noting he is a habitual offender with five prior cases, including a conviction and a pending case under the NDPS Act.

Applying the rationale from *Deepak Yadav*, the Court determined that the applicant's history of recidivism and the fact that he previously misused bail granted in other matters outweighed the arguments regarding the lack of direct contraband recovery and his medical status.

The third bail application was rejected.

The trial court was granted liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.