Subsequent bail to co-accused and absence of conscious possession justify bail on parity.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 172/2025 registered at Police Station Kumhari, District Durg, for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that, on 7 September 2025, police intercepted a container vehicle and recovered approximately 388 kilograms of ganja, resulting in the arrest of the applicant and other accused persons.

His first bail application had been rejected on 28 November 2025, primarily due to the large quantity of contraband allegedly seized. In the second bail application, the applicant relied on changed circumstances, particularly the subsequent grant of bail to co-accused Md. Fayyaz by the Supreme Court on 17 August 2026 and to co-accused Shahid Ahmed by the High Court on 31 August 2026.

1. Whether the applicant established a material change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of his second bail application after rejection of the earlier application?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who had subsequently been granted bail, considering the absence of recovery from his conscious and exclusive possession?

3. Whether the applicant should be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 27-A of the NDPS Act, 1985, concerning possession or transportation of commercial-quantity cannabis, liability relating to a vehicle or premises, and financing or harbouring illicit traffic, respectively.

In considering a successive bail application, the Court treated a material change in circumstances—particularly subsequent bail granted to similarly placed co-accused—as a permissible basis for reconsideration. The principle of parity was applied alongside the circumstances of the individual applicant, including the absence of recovery from his conscious and exclusive possession, absence of recovery at his instance, lack of criminal antecedents, and period of custody.

The Court distinguished the present application from the earlier one because subsequent developments had materially altered the bail circumstances. Although the earlier rejection had principally relied on the alleged seizure of approximately 388 kilograms of ganja, the present record indicated that the contraband was recovered from a container vehicle and not specifically from the applicant’s conscious and exclusive possession; nor was any recovery shown to have been made at his instance.

The subsequent grant of bail to co-accused Md. Fayyaz by the Supreme Court and to co-accused Shahid Ahmed by the High Court in the same crime constituted a significant circumstance supporting parity, which the State was unable to dispute.

Considering these developments together with the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and custody since 7 September 2025, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS. The order also authorised the trial court to proceed in accordance with law in the event of misuse of bail or unjustified absence.