Six pending criminal antecedents indicating a risk of repeat offending justify denial of bail.

Facts

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that 16.434 kg of ganja was recovered from her following a raid based on secret information

Source reference: paras. 1–2, p. 1

The applicant stated that the charge-sheet had been filed, she had been in custody since 6 June 2026, and trial would take time

Source reference: para. 3, p. 2

The record disclosed six pending criminal antecedents: five involving the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, one of which also included an NDPS Act charge, and one under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act

Source reference: para. 6, pp. 2–3

Issues

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the alleged recovery, custody, and filing of the charge-sheet

Source reference: paras. 1–5, pp. 1–2

2. Whether the applicant’s six pending criminal antecedents justified refusing bail due to the risk of repeated offending or non-compliance with bail conditions

Source reference: paras. 6–8, pp. 2–4

Law Applied

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the application for regular bail

Source reference: para. 1, p. 1

The Court treated criminal antecedents as relevant to assessing compliance with bail conditions, the likelihood of repeated offending, and risks of evidence tampering, obstruction, or witness intimidation

Source reference: para. 7, p. 3

It also relied on *Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another*, (2022) 8 SCC 559, noting that the Supreme Court had cancelled bail in light of the accused’s previous antecedents

Source reference: para. 8, p. 3

The order does not set out or discuss the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Source reference: no citation

Reasoning

The Court considered the alleged recovery of 16.434 kg of ganja and the applicant’s six pending antecedents. It viewed the antecedents as indicating a persistent pattern of offending and creating a serious apprehension that she might commit similar offences if released.

Source reference: paras. 6–8, pp. 2–4

Relying on *Deepak Yadav*, the Court concluded that the antecedents weighed against granting bail, notwithstanding the filing of the charge-sheet and the applicant’s period in custody

Source reference: paras. 6–8, pp. 2–4

Holding

The Court rejected the applicant’s bail application, holding that her six pending criminal antecedents and the resulting apprehension of repeat offending outweighed the grounds advanced in support of release