Repeat bail was denied absent changed circumstances, as commercial recovery failed Section 37’s twin conditions.

On 14 September 2024, acting on secret information, the police searched the applicant, Amit Thakur, and a white Swift car allegedly used by him. Four Rexogesic ampoules were recovered from the left pocket of his trousers and 50 additional ampoules were recovered from the car. He was arrested in Crime No. 465/2024, Police Station Takhatpur, for offences under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS

The applicant’s first and second bail applications were rejected on merits on 24 November 2025 and 18 August 2026, respectively. In the third application, he relied on parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, the alleged non-recovery of contraband from his possession, his custody since 15 September 2024, and the slow progress of the trial, in which only two of 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined

The State opposed the application, relying on the commercial quantity allegedly recovered, the applicant’s criminal antecedent, and the absence of any change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier application

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the alleged recovery of commercial quantity attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

2. Whether the applicant could claim bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had been granted bail?

3. Whether prolonged custody and the limited progress of the trial constituted a sufficient change in circumstance for grant of bail in the third application?

The Court considered the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing regular bail. The alleged offences were under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Since the alleged recovery was treated as being above commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied, requiring the Court to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty and was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail

A repeat bail application requires a material change in circumstances or a fresh ground; previously rejected grounds cannot ordinarily be re-agitated

Parity is not automatic and depends upon a comparison of the role, evidence, antecedents and circumstances of the applicant with those of the co-accused granted bail

The Court found that four ampoules had allegedly been recovered from the applicant’s trouser pocket and that 50 further ampoules had been recovered from the car, an amount treated as commercial quantity

Consequently, the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds indicating that he was not guilty, particularly in view of the prima facie material and his criminal antecedent

The plea of parity was rejected because the co-accused had been granted bail on materially different considerations, including medical condition, absence of criminal antecedents, or acquittal in earlier cases

The Court further held that the third application raised no new ground after the rejection of the earlier applications. Although the applicant had remained in custody since 15 September 2024 and only two witnesses had been examined, the delay in trial, by itself, was insufficient to overcome the statutory requirements of Section 37

The third application for regular bail was therefore rejected