Pending NDPS antecedents and ongoing investigation justified denying anticipatory bail despite co-accused’s regular bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 66/2026 registered at Police Station Lawan, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, for an alleged offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that, on 28 February 2026, police received information that two persons were waiting near Khamhariya Road Canal to sell ganja while travelling on a Honda Dio Scooty.

On the police party’s arrival, the alleged driver fled, while co-accused Roshan Manikpuri was apprehended and approximately 1.059 kg of ganja was recovered from a cloth bag in his possession.

The applicant denied being the driver and contended that no contraband had been recovered from his conscious possession.

He argued that his implication was based principally on the co-accused’s memorandum statement, that the recovered quantity was below commercial quantity, and that the co-accused had already been granted regular bail, entitling him to parity.

The State opposed the application, submitting that an offence under the NDPS Act was pending against the applicant.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with the alleged offence under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.

Whether the grant of regular bail to the co-accused, the non-commercial quantity allegedly recovered, and the applicant’s asserted lack of conscious possession justified relief on the ground of parity.

Whether the applicant’s pending NDPS-related criminal antecedent and the stage of investigation justified rejection of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing directions for grant of anticipatory bail, and Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, concerning punishment for contravention relating to cannabis/ganja.

In considering anticipatory bail, the Court assessed the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the stage of investigation, the applicant’s antecedents, and the circumstances of the co-accused.

Although parity with a co-accused who has been granted bail may be relevant, it does not create an automatic entitlement where the Court finds other circumstances militating against anticipatory bail.

No judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order.

The Court acknowledged the applicant’s reliance on the co-accused’s regular bail, the alleged recovery from the co-accused rather than the applicant, and the contention that the quantity was not commercial.

However, it considered that the co-accused was also implicated in the same case, that one NDPS offence was pending against the applicant, and that investigation was still ongoing.

On the basis of the case-diary material, the nature of the allegations, and these adverse circumstances, the Court declined to extend anticipatory protection, without making any final observation on the merits.

It rejected the applicant’s application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 66/2026 registered under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.

The Court directed the office to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court for information.