Regular bail granted under NDPS Act citing lack of conscious possession and parity with co-accused.

On October 21, 2024, police acted on an informer’s tip and apprehended co-accused Srishti and Godavari Bai for selling 150 narcotic ampoules (Buprenorphine and Rexogesic) from a scooter.

The applicant was subsequently arrested on December 27, 2024, and implicated in the crime based on a memorandum statement recorded on January 24, 2025.

No narcotic substances were recovered from the applicant’s conscious possession; the police seized only a cheque book, an ATM card, and a mobile phone.

The applicant, who has remained in custody since late 2024, filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given that no narcotics were seized from his conscious possession and the trial’s conclusion is delayed.

2. Whether the applicant can claim parity with co-accused persons who have already been granted bail by the High Court and Supreme Court.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaces Section 439 of the CrPC for the grant of regular bail.

Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which penalize the possession and conspiracy related to psychotropic substances.

Judicial principle of parity, citing High Court orders in Kajal Kurre (MCRC No. 4265/2025) and Anjali Gendle (MCRC No. 7521/2025), and the Supreme Court’s order in Naveen Idwani (SLP No. 19712/2025).

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the applicant's conscious possession of the narcotics, as the seizure was made solely from co-accused persons.

It observed that the applicant was implicated primarily through a memorandum statement, without corroborating evidence such as Call Detail Records (CDR) linking him to the co-accused.

The Court emphasized the principle of parity, noting that other co-accused had already secured bail from superior courts.

Despite the applicant’s 11 previous criminal antecedents, the Court took cognizance of the fact that he had been acquitted in all those cases.

The Court noted that with only 2 out of 25 witnesses examined since the arrest, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, making continued incarceration unjustifiable.

The Court held that the lack of conscious possession and the slow progress of the trial outweighed the prosecution’s objections.

The bail is subject to specific conditions, including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, mandatory attendance at trial dates, and penalties under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for non-compliance or abuse of liberty.