Non-compliance with Section 37 NDPS Act conditions in granting bail to co-accused precludes claim of parity.

The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his apprehension in Tarava P.S. Case No. 178 of 2025

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was chased and nabbed by police while transporting a commercial quantity of contraband (9 Quintal 35 Kgs 140 Grams of Ganja) in a Bolero Pick-up vehicle

The petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity, noting that co-accused Sujit Naik had been granted bail in BLAPL No. 3112 of 2026, and argued he was not in conscious possession

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity if the order granting bail to the co-accused does not demonstrate satisfaction of the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

2. Whether the petitioner satisfied the dual conditions for bail involving commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act governs bail for offences involving commercial quantities, requiring the Court to be satisfied that (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

The Court relied on Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, which establishes that recording the satisfaction of Section 37 conditions is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases; an order failing to demonstrate this satisfaction cannot serve as a binding precedent for parity

The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea for parity, observing that the order granting bail to the co-accused in BLAPL No. 3112 of 2026 failed to discuss or demonstrate satisfaction of the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Applying the precedent in Satpal Singh, the Court held that such a deficiency in a co-accused's bail order precludes it from being a valid basis for parity

On the merits, the Court noted the specific allegations that the petitioner was chased and caught in actual possession of a massive commercial quantity (over 9 quintals) of Ganja

Consequently, the Court found no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty, meaning the mandatory statutory threshold for bail remained unsatisfied

The application for bail was rejected

The Court ordered a soft copy of the judgment to be transmitted to the lower court (Special-cum-Dist. Judge, Sonepur) for reference