Prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act justify denial of bail to a habitual offender.

The applicant was arrested following a police raid conducted at P.S. Newai, District Durg, based on secret information.

Police seized 2.172 kg of Ganja from the applicant’s possession.

An FIR (Crime No. 89/2025) was registered under Sections 20(B) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The applicant has been in custody since April 16, 2025, and the investigation resulted in the filing of a charge-sheet before the competent court.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under the NDPS Act, notwithstanding the existence of prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature.

Sections 20(B) and 27(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which penalize the possession and financing of illicit traffic of narcotic substances.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which holds that an accused's previous criminal antecedents are a critical factor in determining the suitability for bail and can warrant the denial or cancellation of bail.

The Court examined the applicant's contention that the seized quantity was below commercial limits and that the arrest was based on a co-accused's memorandum.

The Court prioritized the State’s submission that the applicant had two pending criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act (Crime Nos. 16/2023 and 84/2022).

By evaluating these facts against the precedent in Deepak Yadav, the Court determined that the applicant is a "habitual offender" involved in recurring narcotic offenses.

The Court found that the risk of recidivism and the nature of the antecedents outweighed the factors favoring the applicant’s release, making it an unfit case for bail.

The Court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.

The office was further directed to communicate the order to the concerned trial court for compliance.