Second bail application rejected as seized contraband exceeds commercial quantity despite prolonged detention and slow trial progress.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following the rejection of her first application on 06.11.2025.

The prosecution alleges that on 21.10.2024, acting on a tip-off, police intercepted co-accused Srishti alias Monty and seized 150 ampoules of Buprenorphine (Rexogesic injections), cash, and a mobile phone.

The applicant was arrested on 07.12.2024 for offenses under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant sought bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration, the examination of only 2 out of 24 witnesses, and parity with a co-accused who was granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail despite the seizure of commercial quantities of narcotics and the existence of a criminal antecedent.

The court applied Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which govern offenses and punishments related to manufactured drugs and psychotropic substances.

The court also considered the stringent limitations on bail under the NDPS Act, particularly when the quantity seized exceeds "commercial quantity" and the accused has a prior criminal record.

Furthermore, the court looked at the principle of judicial consistency regarding the rejection of bail for other similarly situated co-accused persons.

The Court noted that this was the applicant’s second attempt at bail, with no substantial change in circumstances since the first rejection.

Although the applicant argued for parity with a co-accused who was granted bail, the Court highlighted that the bail applications of three other co-accused (Reshma Kurre, Ravishankar Markam, and Naveen Kumar Edwani) had been repeatedly rejected.

The Court emphasized that the contraband seized was above the commercial quantity, which triggers stricter statutory scrutiny.

Additionally, the applicant’s prior criminal history—specifically Crime No. 925 of 2024 under the NDPS Act—weighed heavily against the exercise of judicial discretion in her favor.

The Court found that since the trial was actively in progress, the grounds of delay in examining witnesses were insufficient to override the severity of the offense.

It held that the involvement in a commercial quantity case, coupled with a criminal antecedent under the same Act and the ongoing nature of the trial, precluded the grant of bail.

The Court directed the office to communicate this order to the trial court for information and compliance.