Parity and lack of exclusive possession of non-commercial quantity justify grant of bail under NDPS Act.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 261/2025 for alleged offenses involving heroin (chitta) under the NDPS Act.

On December 27, 2025, police recovered 16.1 grams of heroin from the residence of co-accused Harpreet Kaur.

The applicant was implicated based on memorandum statements by co-accused Jodha Singh, who alleged that the applicant assisted in selling the contraband and had consumed narcotic substances.

The applicant contended that no contraband was recovered from his exclusive possession, procedural requirements under Section 42 of the NDPS Act were bypassed, and he had no prior criminal record.

The applicant had been in custody since February 18, 2026.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the principle of parity and the nature of the recovery.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Sections 21(b), 27(a), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), relating to the possession of intermediate quantities of manufactured drugs and conspiracy.

The court also considered the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, noting that co-accused persons in the same crime had already been granted relief.

The court observed that the 16.1 grams of heroin recovered was less than the "commercial quantity" defined under the NDPS Act.

Crucially, the court noted that the contraband was seized from a drawer in the co-accused's home and was not in the exclusive possession of the applicant.

The court found merit in the plea of parity, as co-accused Harpreet Kaur and Jodha Singh had been granted bail by the same court on March 19, 2026, in MCRC No. 2583/2026.

Furthermore, the court took into account the applicant’s clean criminal record, his duration of incarceration since February 2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, concluding that the trial was likely to be prolonged.

The court ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence during trial dates under penalty of Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; and (iii) personal appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.