Regular bail granted on parity and lack of criminal antecedents in a non-commercial quantity NDPS case.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

On January 15, 2026, police apprehended a co-accused, Balveer Singh, and recovered 205 grams of opium from his scooter.

Based on Singh’s memorandum statement, the applicant was implicated.

The applicant allegedly led police to the ruins of Bank of Baroda Colony, where an additional 200 grams of opium was recovered.

The applicant has been in custody since January 16, 2026, and a charge-sheet has been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the principle of parity with co-accused persons and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail.

The court also considered Sections 22(b), 27(A), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Furthermore, the court observed the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, referencing its own previous orders in Balveer Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 4184 of 2026) and Swaroop Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 3617 of 2026), where identically situated co-accused were granted relief.

Procedural compliance was mandated via Section 269 (non-attendance) and Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court evaluated the gravity of the offense involving the recovery of 200 grams of opium at the applicant's instance.

The court weighed this against the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been detained since early 2026.

Crucially, the court found the applicant’s role to be identical to that of co-accused Balveer Singh and Swaroop Soni, both of whom had already been granted bail by the same High Court in April and May 2026.

Since the charge-sheet was already filed and the trial was expected to be protracted, the court determined that further incarceration was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant’s participation in the trial.

The holding was based on the applicant's lack of criminal history and the principle of parity.

The release is subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must be present for all trial dates (subject to Section 269 of BNS), and must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS. Any breach of these conditions allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.