Parity warrants bail where the principal supplier and recovery-holding co-accused have already been released.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Police alleged that 3,407 grams of opium were recovered from co-accused Siya Ram and Dinesh, and that the applicant was the intended recipient and had deposited money into bank accounts connected with the alleged procurement of drugs; no drugs were recovered from him.

The chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet had been filed, charges framed, and the trial was at the prosecution-evidence stage.

The applicant had been in custody since 2 April 2024.

His two earlier bail applications before the Trial Court had been dismissed, while the alleged supplier and the co-accused from whom the opium was recovered had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, particularly on the ground of parity with co-accused who had already been released on bail.

2. Whether the applicant’s custody, the completion of investigation, and the stage of trial supported the grant of bail.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 21/29 of the NDPS Act.

The Court applied the principle of parity, considering whether the applicant’s position warranted similar treatment to co-accused already granted bail.

The Court noted that investigation was complete, both chargesheets had been filed, charges had been framed, and the applicant had spent more than two years in custody.

It also considered that the alleged supplier and the co-accused from whom the opium was recovered had already been granted bail.

Although the State relied on alleged bank deposits and verified voice samples, the Court concluded that parity with the bailed co-accused, considered in the circumstances of the case, presented no impediment to release.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial on the merits.