Parity warrants bail under NDPS Act when evidence rests solely on disclosure statements without incriminating corroboration.

The applicant sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. VIII/74/DZU/2022 registered by the NCB DZU for offences under Sections 8, 21, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution's case originated from the seizure of 4.98 kg of cocaine from a co-accused, Dipali, who claimed in her confessional statement that she received the contraband from the applicant and another individual at a hotel in Mumbai.

The applicant subsequently made disclosure statements regarding his involvement and that of other co-accused, leading to a further recovery of 2.055 kg of cocaine from another co-accused, Kelemuwa.

The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground of parity with co-accused Yesak Angsom, who was granted bail on 28.07.2025.

The NCB opposed the bail, citing the recovery of USD 3,500 from the applicant and the existence of WhatsApp chats with a suspected associate.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Yesak Angsom.

2. Whether the recovery of drug money and the existence of WhatsApp chats constitute sufficient additional evidence to deny bail, notwithstanding the parity argument.

The Court considered the provisions of Sections 8, 21, 23, and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

It applied the principle of parity in bail matters, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally unless distinct incriminating evidence exists.

The Court also evaluated the evidentiary value of disclosure statements and the requirement for "explicitly incriminating" electronic evidence (WhatsApp chats) to justify continued incarceration.

The Court examined the NCB's contention that the applicant’s case was distinct from that of the co-accused Yesak due to the recovery of USD 3,500 and WhatsApp chats.

However, the Court observed that money had also been recovered from Yesak, albeit a smaller amount.

Regarding the electronic evidence, the Court noted that the NCB failed to produce any "explicitly incriminating" WhatsApp chats that would link the applicant to the trade beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage.

The Court concluded that, similar to the co-accused who was already on bail, the primary evidence against the applicant remained his disclosure statement.

Given that the material circumstances were substantially similar to the co-accused who was granted bail after a review of CCTV footage, the Court found no justification for a different treatment of the applicant.

Since the applicant’s visa had expired, the Court issued a specific direction that upon acceptance of the bail bond, his custody must be handed over by the Jail Superintendent to the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO).

The Court clarified that these observations would not prejudice the final trial.