Presence of prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act justifies denial of regular bail despite recovery of intermediate quantity.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on December 5, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 0279/2025

The prosecution alleged that police intercepted co-accused individuals and subsequently recovered 8.20 grams of Heroin/Chitta from the applicant's possession based on memorandum statements

The applicant's counsel argued for bail on the grounds that the quantity seized was small (less than 5 grams being small, more than 250 grams being commercial) and that the trial would be lengthy

the State opposed the application, noting that while the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had two prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite having multiple criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Sections 20(b), 25, and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Procedurally, the application was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court relied on the precedent established in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which holds that bail may be cancelled or denied if the accused has a history of previous criminal antecedents

The court evaluated the applicant's plea against the gravity of the offense and his personal record. Although the applicant argued that the 8.20 grams of Heroin seized was relatively small compared to commercial quantities, the court placed significant weight on the State's submission regarding the applicant’s recidivism

Applying the principles from Deepak Yadav, the court reasoned that the presence of two previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act disqualified the applicant from being considered a fit candidate for regular bail at this stage

The court determined that the filing of the charge-sheet did not sufficiently mitigate the risks associated with the applicant’s prior criminal history

The court held that given the two criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, the applicant could not be enlarged on bail

The court granted the trial court liberty to conclude the proceedings expeditiously and directed the office to communicate the order to the concerned trial court for information