NDPS Act | Karnataka High Court Grants Bail On Ground Of Parity To Accused Found With Lesser Quantity Than Co-Accused

"Admittedly, accused No.1 has been granted bail, who has been accused of being in possession of higher quantity of cannabis than the petitioner... under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for grant of bail." Karnataka High Court, in an order, held that an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity if a co-accused, found in possession of a significantly higher quantity of contraband, has already been enlarged on bail.

A single-judge bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to be prolonged, continued incarceration is not warranted, especially when the main accused is at liberty.

The petitioner, Nagendra @ Nagu (Accused No. 2), was arrested on June 15, 2025, following a disclosure statement made by Accused No. 1, who was caught with 4.725 kg of cannabis. The police alleged that Nagendra had supplied the contraband to the first accused and subsequently recovered an additional 1.590 kg of cannabis from his possession. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail after the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused. The court also examined whether the nature of the offence and the progress of the trial necessitated the continued custody of the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Court Applies Principle Of Parity In NDPS Cases

The court noted that the primary accused in the case, who was allegedly found in possession of 4.725 kg of cannabis, had already been granted bail by the Special Court. The bench observed that the quantity recovered from the petitioner (1.590 kg) was significantly lower than that recovered from the co-accused.

The bench found it incongruous to deny bail to the petitioner when the individual facing more serious allegations of possessing a larger quantity had been released. This disparity in treatment formed the core of the court's reasoning in allowing the petition.

"Admittedly, accused No.1 has been granted bail, who has been accused of being in possession of higher quantity of cannabis than the petitioner."

Intermediate Quantity Not Considered A Heinous Offence

While discussing the nature of the crime under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the court observed that the petitioner was not accused of a "heinous crime" in the context of the quantities involved. The recovery of 1.590 kg falls within the category of intermediate quantity, which does not attract the stringent embargo on bail found in Section 37 of the NDPS Act for commercial quantities.

The court took into account the petitioner’s submission that he is a law-abiding citizen and not in a position to threaten witnesses or influence the ongoing proceedings. The bench emphasized that the purpose of bail is to ensure presence at trial rather than serving as a pre-trial punishment.

Prolonged Trial And Completion Of Investigation Justify Release

Justice Arun highlighted that the investigation into the matter is already complete and the police report (charge sheet) has been filed before the jurisdictional court. The bench noted that the petitioner's presence was no longer required for custodial interrogation or further investigation.

Furthermore, the court observed that the prosecution intends to examine 21 witnesses, which suggests that the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. The petitioner had already spent nearly ten months in custody since his arrest in June 2025.

"There are about 21 witnesses yet to be examined and the trial is likely to take some time."

Final Directions and Conditions for Bail

The High Court allowed the petition and directed that Nagendra be enlarged on bail in Special Case No. 193/2025. To ensure the integrity of the judicial process, the court imposed several conditions, including the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties.

The petitioner was strictly directed not to tamper with prosecution witnesses or involve himself in any future offences. Additionally, the court prohibited him from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission until the disposal of the case.

The Karnataka High Court concluded that the principle of parity must be upheld where the co-accused with a higher degree of alleged involvement is already on bail. By granting bail to the petitioner, the court balanced the state's interest in prosecuting drug offences with the individual's right to liberty during a potentially lengthy trial.

Date of Decision: 23 April 2026