Parity cannot justify successive bail when the earlier application was rejected on merits after considering co-accused’s bail.

On 02 January 2026, police received information that Mithilesh Pathak and Parmeshwar Thakur were present at Mini Stadium, Dabrapara, intending to sell heroin.

The police raided the location and seized contraband from them.

In their memorandum statements, they allegedly disclosed that they were working for Rajji and Kishan Kumar—the present applicant—and had been paid to procure heroin from Punjab and transport it back to them.

Pursuant to those statements, police searched Rajji and the applicant and allegedly seized 18.370 grams of contraband and cash.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 02/2026 registered at Police Station Khurshipar, District Durg, for offences under Sections 8, 21(b), and 27(a) of the NDPS Act.

The applicant’s first bail application, MCRC No. 6745 of 2026, was rejected on merits on 27 July 2026.

In the present second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, he relied on parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail and contended that the contraband had not been recovered from his exclusive possession.

He also submitted that he had remained in custody since 02 January 2026 and that the trial would take time.

The State opposed bail, pointing out that the earlier application had already considered and rejected the ground of parity, inter alia, in view of the applicant’s three live criminal antecedents, including one under the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 8, 21(b), and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, particularly when the alleged recovery was not from his exclusive possession?

Whether the applicant could claim bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail, despite rejection of his earlier bail application on merits?

Whether prolonged custody and the anticipated duration of the trial constituted sufficient grounds for granting bail in the circumstances of the case?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Sections 8, 21(b), and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, under which the applicant was prosecuted.

It also applied the principle that parity is not an absolute or automatic ground for bail; it must be assessed in light of the applicant’s individual circumstances and the reasons for granting bail to the co-accused.

In a successive bail application, the applicant must demonstrate a legally relevant change in circumstances or a fresh ground, particularly where the earlier application was rejected on merits.

The Court further considered the applicant’s live criminal antecedents, including an antecedent under the NDPS Act, as relevant to the discretionary determination of bail.

The Court acknowledged that the contraband was not seized from the applicant’s exclusive possession and that his implication was based on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

However, the Court held that the applicant’s reliance on parity did not constitute a fresh or sufficient ground because the same ground had been available to and raised in the first bail application.

Although the co-accused had subsequently been granted bail, the applicant’s earlier application had been rejected on merits after the Court considered his three live criminal antecedents, including one NDPS case.

The Court therefore treated the prior rejection, the applicant’s antecedents, and the nature of the allegations as outweighing the contentions regarding non-exclusive recovery, custody, and the likely delay in trial.

The ground of parity had already been considered in the earlier bail proceedings, and no sufficient basis was shown to depart from the earlier decision, particularly in view of the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the allegations against him.

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was rejected.