Parity is not automatic in commercial-quantity NDPS cases; each accused’s individual role must be independently assessed.

On 23 October 2024, police received information that a white Ertiga car bearing registration no. MP-54-ZA-1674 was transporting ganja from Manendragarh towards Anuppur.

The vehicle was intercepted at Village Pairchua, and 13 packets containing 64.77 kilograms of ganja were allegedly seized.

Crime No. 433/2024 was registered at Police Station Kotma, District Anuppur, initially for an offence under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while the present application refers to offences under Sections 8(B)(ii)(C) read with Sections 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant filed his fourth application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Shivam Rai, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Whether the absence of direct recovery of contraband from the applicant’s possession justified bail despite the alleged transportation of 64.77 kilograms of ganja.

Whether bail could be granted in view of the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applicable to offences involving commercial quantity.

The Court considered its jurisdiction to grant regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC/Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning possession, transportation and abetment or criminal conspiracy relating to narcotic substances.

Since 64.77 kilograms of ganja was alleged to have been recovered, the quantity was treated as commercial, attracting the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court applied the principle that parity is not automatic or mechanical; the role, allegations and individual circumstances of each accused must be independently examined.

The Court accepted that the alleged recovery of 64.77 kilograms of ganja constituted commercial quantity, thereby attracting Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

It rejected the applicant’s reliance on the bail granted to Shivam Rai, holding that parity could not be mechanically extended because the individual role and evidentiary circumstances of each accused required separate consideration.

The Court also found that the applicant’s assertion that no contraband had been recovered directly from him was insufficient, as his alleged involvement in transporting the contraband had to be assessed with reference to the investigation material.

The merits of that defence were left for consideration at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

In view of the commercial quantity involved, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the fourth bail application was dismissed.