Regular bail granted for intermediate quantity of narcotics based on parity and lack of criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Balveer Singh, was apprehended on January 15, 2026, near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Bhilai, following a tip-off. A search of his scooter resulted in the recovery of 205 grams of opium

Based on his memorandum statement, co-accused Ram Babu was arrested, leading to a further recovery of 200 grams of opium, which was allegedly sourced from another co-accused, Swaroop Soni

The applicant was charged under Sections 22(B), 27(A), and 29 of the NDPS Act and has been in judicial custody since January 16, 2026

The applicant sought regular bail primarily on the grounds of parity with co-accused Swaroop Soni and the absence of previous criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the quantity of the seized substance and the principle of parity

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

Sections 22(B), 27(A), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

The court relied on the principle of parity, noting the previous grant of bail to co-accused Swaroop Soni under MCRC No. 3617/2026

Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (punishment for non-appearance), 269 (attendance of prisoners), and 351 (evidence to be taken in presence of accused) of the BNSS and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court evaluated the nature and gravity of the allegations against the applicant in light of several mitigating factors. It observed that the 205 grams of opium recovered constituted an "intermediate quantity," thus not attracting the highest level of statutory rigor

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal record and that a co-accused, Swaroop Soni, had already been granted bail by the same Court

The Court further reasoned that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been incarcerated for nearly four months, his continued detention was unnecessary as the trial was unlikely to conclude in a short timeframe

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties. Specific conditions were imposed, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a mandate for personal appearance on key trial dates (framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and warnings regarding consequences for misusing the liberty of bail under Sections 84 and 209 of the BNSS/BNS