Second Bail Application allowed on grounds of parity and hostile prosecution witnesses despite commercial quantity seizure.

The applicants were arrested on 16.10.2025 following a police intercept of a vehicle in District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, where 495 vials of Codext-R cough syrup (containing psychotropic substances) were recovered from three occupants.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicants; the first was rejected on merits on 16.01.2026.

The applicants have been in custody since 16.10.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed, and out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined and have turned hostile.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail on the ground of parity and the change in circumstances regarding the trial’s progress.

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

Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, involving commercial quantities of psychotropic substances.

The court also applied the principle of parity, citing the previous grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused, Rajkumar Yadav @ Raju, in MCRC No. 9889/2025.

Procedural conditions for bail were regulated under Sections 269, 84, and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 351 of the BNSS.

The court observed that although the previous bail application was rejected on merits, several factors now favored the applicants. First, the principle of parity applied as an identical co-accused had already been granted bail by the same Court.

Second, the court noted the lack of previous criminal antecedents of the applicants.

Third, the court evaluated the evidentiary status of the trial, noting that the only two witnesses examined so far out of eighteen had turned hostile, significantly weakening the prosecution's immediate stance.

Given that the charge-sheet is filed and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, the court determined that further incarceration was not warranted despite the rigors of the NDPS Act.

The release is subject to a personal bond with two sureties and strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments during evidence and mandatory presence at trial, and the trial court was further directed to conclude the trial within six months.