Regular bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused were enlarged and trial remained incomplete.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 381/2024 registered at Police Station Jutemill, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, police raided the area near Kodatarai Airstrip on 28 August 2024 and seized approximately 175 kilograms of ganja from two vehicles.

During investigation, the police relied upon the memorandum statement of co-accused Santram Khunte and alleged the involvement of several other accused persons in transporting the contraband; vehicles, mobile phones and cash were also seized, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits by the High Court on 8 January 2025.

In the present second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the applicant relied on parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, the absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody since 28 August 2024, and the fact that 16 of 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the subsequent grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused on the ground of parity?

Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and substantial progress of the trial justified the grant of bail despite the allegations under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

It considered the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to co-accused who have already been granted bail may ordinarily receive similar treatment, subject to the facts of the individual case.

The Court also considered relevant bail factors, including the applicant’s period of incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents, progress of the trial, likelihood of the trial taking time, and the absence of any disputed circumstance regarding the bail granted to the co-accused.

The prosecution allegations were under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The Court found that multiple co-accused, including Vyomkesh Khatua and Deepak @ Nanhu Bharadwaj, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, while other co-accused had subsequently been granted bail by the High Court.

Since the State did not dispute these orders, and the applicant’s case was treated as comparable, the principle of parity weighed in her favour.

The Court further noted that the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 28 August 2024, and that 16 of the 22 prosecution witnesses had already been examined.

As the trial was nevertheless likely to take additional time, continued detention was not considered necessary at that stage.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The applicant, Sumitra Khunte, was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring her not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of her statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.