Parity and absence of direct recovery justify grant of bail in NDPS and Arms Act cases.

The applicant, Jashandeep Singh, sought regular bail following his arrest on August 30, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 190/2025

The prosecution alleged that on August 29, 2025, a search at the residence of co-accused Rupinder Singh led to the recovery of 87.93 grams of heroin, 91 grams of opium, and various cartridges

Rupinder Singh’s mobile data allegedly implicated the applicant as a subordinate peddler in frequent contact with the primary accused

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, no contraband was seized directly from his possession, the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were not followed, and he had no prior criminal record

The State opposed the bail, citing the quantity of contraband seized from the collective possession of the accused persons

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the filing of the charge-sheet and the principle of parity with co-accused Arbaz Khan.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 21(B) and 18(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act (dealing with intermediate quantities of contraband), Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (organized crime), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The Court also observed the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence and the relevance of the stage of investigation (filing of charge-sheet) in determining the necessity of continued incarceration

The Court’s reasoning focused on three primary factors: parity, procedural status, and personal history.

First, the Court noted that a co-accused, Arbaz Khan, had already been granted bail by a coordinate order dated December 5, 2025, establishing a basis for parity

Second, the Court observed that the investigation was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, mitigating concerns regarding the applicant's interference with the probe

Third, the Court emphasized the applicant’s lack of previous criminal antecedents and the fact that he had been in judicial custody since September 1, 2026 (sic)

Given that the trial was likely to take a considerable amount of time, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted

The Court imposed several conditions, including: (i) a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments during the evidence stage [para. 7(i)]; (ii) a requirement for the applicant to remain present at every hearing or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS [para. 7(ii)]; (iii) strict compliance with court appearances during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS [para. 7(iv)].

Any violation of these conditions or failure to appear following a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS would allow the trial court to initiate proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS and treat the default as an abuse of liberty