Hostile witnesses and parity lack merit for bail where applicant is a habitual NDPS offender.

The applicant, Rahul Dhruv, was arrested on 28.08.2025 following a police raid near Circus Ground, Bhatapara, where 1.106 kg of ganja was seized from a co-accused (Suman Dhruv), and Rs. 500/- was recovered from the applicant as alleged sale proceeds.

Consequently, Crime No. 471/2025 was registered under the NDPS Act.

This is the applicant's third bail application; two previous applications (MCRC Nos. 8312/2025 and 722/2026) were rejected on 16.10.2025 and 20.01.2026 due to his criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought bail on new grounds, specifically that independent seizure witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) turned hostile during the trial and that the co-accused had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the fact that prosecution witnesses turned hostile during trial constitutes a sufficient "new ground" to grant a third bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

2. Whether the applicant, being a habitual offender with four criminal antecedents including prior NDPS cases, is entitled to regular bail despite the recovery being limited to cash.

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

It further relied on Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Crucially, the court invoked the precedent set in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which establishes that a history of criminal antecedents is a vital factor in denying bail and can justify the cancellation of previously granted bail.

The Court observed that while the applicant contended that the hostility of independent witnesses (PW-1 to PW-3) weakened the prosecution's case, such a development during trial does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially in a successive application.

The Court scrutinized the applicant’s criminal record, noting four previous antecedents: two under the NDPS Act (2021 and 2024), one under the Excise Act, and one under the IPC.

The Court reasoned that the applicant is a "habitual offender" who had previously misused the liberty of bail.

Applying the principle from Deepak Yadav, the Court determined that the risk of recidivism outweighed the grounds of parity with the co-accused or the lack of direct contraband seizure from the applicant's person.

The third bail application was rejected.

However, the trial court was granted liberty to conclude the trial expeditiously.