Parity with bailed co-accused justified bail in an intermediate-quantity NDPS case despite one pending antecedent.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 56/2026, registered under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). The prosecution alleged that 56 grams of heroin were recovered from the dashboard of a vehicle jointly occupied by the applicant and two co-accused persons.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), relying, among other grounds, on the grant of bail to the co-accused, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and his period in custody since 13 April 2026.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s criminal antecedents, including a pending NDPS case.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in the NDPS case involving the alleged recovery of 56 grams of heroin

2. Whether the grant of bail to the co-accused, together with the applicant’s custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and criminal antecedents, supported release on bail

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the quantity allegedly seized, the applicant’s custody, filing of the charge-sheet, parity with bailed co-accused, and the criminal antecedents disclosed on the record.

The order cites no specific precedent or further legal test.

The Court noted that the alleged 56 grams of heroin was less than commercial quantity, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that the applicant had been in custody since 13 April 2026.

It also considered that both co-accused had been granted bail and that the applicant’s case was stated to be identical to theirs.

Although one similar NDPS case remained pending against the applicant, the Court treated that antecedent as insufficient, in the circumstances, to outweigh the other factors supporting release.

Without expressing any view on the merits, it concluded that bail was warranted.

It directed the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicant was also required not to influence persons acquainted with the case, not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and to attend each hearing until disposal of the trial.