Parity with a similarly placed co-accused, coupled with delayed trial, justified regular bail.

On 10 July 2024, the police received secret information that three persons were carrying ganja from Power House, Bhilai, towards Raipur.

The police intercepted them near a Honda showroom on the service road and allegedly recovered 16.900 kg of ganja from co-accused Ajit Kumar and 12 kg each from applicants Deepak Kumar Singh and Bigan Ansari, totalling 40.900 kg.

An FIR was registered as Crime No. 310/2024 at Police Station Chhawani, District Durg, for an offence under Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act.

Bigan Ansari filed his fourth application for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS; his first two applications had been rejected on merits and his third had been withdrawn.

Deepak Kumar Singh filed his third bail application after his first two applications had been rejected on merits.

The applicants relied on the subsequent grant of bail to co-accused Ajit Kumar by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9901/2025, the similarity in the quantities allegedly recovered from the applicants, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the slow progress of the trial, with only three of fourteen prosecution witnesses examined.

The State opposed bail by relying on the aggregate recovery of 40.900 kg, stated to be above commercial quantity, but did not dispute Ajit Kumar’s release on bail or the applicants’ lack of criminal antecedents.

Whether the subsequent grant of bail to co-accused Ajit Kumar, together with the comparable quantity allegedly recovered from the applicants, constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to justify bail on the ground of parity despite the applicants’ earlier bail applications having been rejected?

Whether the slow progress of the trial, absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that only three of fourteen prosecution witnesses had been examined warranted the applicants’ release on regular bail in an offence under Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning offences involving commercial quantities of cannabis.

It considered the established principle that a successive bail application may be entertained where there is a subsequent development or change in circumstances, including the release of a similarly placed co-accused, and that parity is a relevant consideration in bail adjudication.

The Court also considered the expected duration of the trial, the applicants’ criminal antecedent status, and the alleged individual recoveries.

The order does not separately analyse the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court acknowledged that the applicants’ earlier bail applications had been rejected, but treated the Supreme Court’s subsequent grant of bail to co-accused Ajit Kumar as a material new circumstance.

Although 16.900 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from Ajit Kumar, the alleged recoveries from each applicant were 12 kg, and the Court found the applicants sufficiently similarly placed for parity consideration.

The Court further considered that both applicants had no criminal antecedents and that the trial was progressing slowly, with only three of fourteen prosecution witnesses examined, making its conclusion likely to take further time.

Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s objection concerning the aggregate recovery of 40.900 kg, the Court concluded, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, that the applicants constituted fit cases for regular bail.

Bigan Ansari and Deepak Kumar Singh were directed to be released on regular bail in Crime No. 310/2024 upon furnishing personal bonds with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, to comply with proceedings relating to non-appearance or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.