Regular bail granted on parity and prolonged custody despite five criminal antecedents after chargesheet.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 286/2025 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, for offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, the police apprehended a co-accused and registered the crime; the applicant was subsequently implicated on the basis of the co-accused’s memorandum statement.

The applicant contended that no brown sugar was seized from his exclusive possession and that his implication rested solely on the co-accused’s statement.

He further relied on the grant of bail to co-accused persons, the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 27 March 2026, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial.

The prosecution opposed bail, particularly on the ground that the applicant had five criminal antecedents, but did not dispute that the co-accused had been granted bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, where his implication was based on the co-accused’s memorandum statement and no contraband was seized from his exclusive possession.

Whether parity with the co-accused, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the likely delay in trial justified grant of bail despite his five criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning punishment for possession of specified quantities of narcotic drugs and criminal conspiracy or abetment relating to offences under the Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the absence of seizure from the applicant’s exclusive possession, the evidentiary basis of his implication, parity with similarly placed co-accused, filing of the charge-sheet, length of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

Bail was granted subject to conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court noted that the applicant’s alleged involvement arose from the memorandum statement of a co-accused and that brown sugar had not been seized from his exclusive possession.

Although the applicant had five criminal antecedents, the Court treated the grant of bail to the co-accused as a relevant parity consideration, particularly since the State did not dispute those orders.

The filing of the charge-sheet reduced the need for continued custodial investigation, while the applicant’s custody since 27 March 2026 and the likelihood of a prolonged trial weighed in favour of release.

Balancing these circumstances against the prosecution’s objections, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to stringent conditions intended to secure his presence and prevent abuse of the liberty granted.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to face appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, proclamation, or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.