Pending prior NDPS antecedents defeat parity and justify denying bail for commercial-quantity offences.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 58/2025 registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, a raid was conducted on 8 March 2025 at an under-construction house at Village Sonajori, where 22 kilograms of ganja was seized—11 kilograms allegedly from co-accused Keshav Yadav and 11 kilograms allegedly from the applicant.

During investigation, vehicles, fake number plates and mobile phones were also allegedly seized, and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.

The applicant contended that the contraband had been recovered from an open construction site and not from his conscious possession; he also challenged compliance with statutory safeguards relating to search, seizure, sampling, weighing, preparation of the panchnama and Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

He sought bail on the grounds of parity, prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, relying on bail granted to co-accused Murli Yadav by the Supreme Court and to co-accused Nandlal Yadav by the High Court.

The State opposed bail, asserting that 11 kilograms of ganja had been separately seized from the applicant and that he had a pending criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the alleged recovery of 11 kilograms of ganja, which, when considered with the recovery from the co-accused, formed a commercial quantity attracting the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons, prolonged incarceration and alleged procedural irregularities in the search and seizure.

Whether the applicant’s pending criminal antecedent materially distinguished his case from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, relating to possession and criminal conspiracy concerning cannabis, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail where the offence involves commercial quantity.

The Court also considered Section 111 of the BNS.

In assessing the relevance of the applicant’s antecedent, the Court relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, recognising that previous criminal antecedents may justify refusal or cancellation of bail and may indicate misuse of earlier liberty.

The principles of parity require a substantially similar factual and criminal antecedent profile; parity is not automatic where the applicant’s circumstances are materially different.

The Court found that the applicant was alleged to have been in possession of 11 kilograms of ganja and that, together with the 11 kilograms seized from co-accused Keshav Yadav, the total quantity was 22 kilograms, falling within the commercial quantity threshold.

Consequently, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

Although the applicant relied on the bail granted to co-accused Murli Yadav, the Court held that the cases were not comparable because Murli Yadav had no criminal antecedent, whereas the applicant had a pending NDPS case from 2025.

The Court treated this antecedent as indicating habitual offending and possible misuse of previously granted bail.

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity of contraband, the applicant’s antecedent and the statutory restriction under Section 37, the Court found no sufficient basis to grant bail.

The applicant’s contentions regarding conscious possession, procedural non-compliance, prolonged custody and trial delay did not persuade the Court to overcome the Section 37 embargo.

The alleged recovery, viewed in the context of the total commercial quantity, attracted Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the applicant’s pending NDPS antecedent materially distinguished his case from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail.

The bail application was accordingly rejected.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court.