The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that repeated commission of offences under the NDPS Act, particularly after being granted interim bail on a prior conviction, constitutes a decisive ground to deny regular bail. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s strict stance against habitual drug offenders who exploit judicial leniency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Firu @ Fired Yadav, was arrested on 30.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 20/2026 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleges that during a raid conducted after secret information, 2.020 kg of ganja valued at Rs. 14,140 was recovered from his possession in the presence of witnesses, following due compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Key Facts
- The applicant was arrested on 30.01.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then.
- A charge-sheet has been filed and the case is now before the trial court for prosecution evidence.
- The applicant has a prior criminal record under the NDPS Act: Crime No. 98/2018.
- On 03.05.2019, he was convicted by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mungeli, in Special Criminal Case No. 05/2018 and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine.
- He filed a criminal appeal (CRA No. 869/2019) before the Chhattisgarh High Court against the conviction.
- During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an interim bail application (I.A. No. 01/2019) seeking suspension of sentence, which was granted.
- After being released on bail in 2019, he allegedly committed the present offence under the NDPS Act.
Procedural History
- 30.01.2026: Arrest of applicant following recovery of ganja during raid.
- 30.01.2026: Crime No. 20/2026 registered at Police Station Pathariya.
- Before 30.04.2026: Charge-sheet filed and case fixed for prosecution evidence.
- 30.04.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on grounds of prolonged pre-trial detention, alleged procedural lapses in search and seizure, and the anticipated length of trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused with a prior conviction under the NDPS Act, who committed another offence after being released on interim bail in the prior case, can be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, particularly when the conduct demonstrates habitual offending and misuse of judicial liberty.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the applicant has been in custody since 30.01.2026, the trial may take considerable time, and the search and seizure procedures were not fully compliant with the NDPS Act. He contended that the applicant is entitled to bail as a matter of right under Section 483 BNSS, especially since the charge-sheet has been filed and no further investigation is pending.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel opposed bail on the ground that the applicant is a habitual offender. She highlighted his prior conviction in 2019, the grant of interim bail during appeal, and his re-offence within a short period after release. She relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559 to argue that prior antecedents and misuse of bail are compelling reasons to deny regular bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the applicant’s criminal history and found that his conduct after being granted interim bail in the prior case was a clear violation of the trust placed in him by the judiciary. The fact that he committed another serious offence under the NDPS Act immediately after being released on bail demonstrated a pattern of recidivism and disregard for legal boundaries.
"The conduct of the applicant goes to show that he is a habitual offender and has misused the liberty of bail granted to him earlier."
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav had cancelled bail granted to an accused with prior NDPS antecedents, emphasizing that such offenders pose a threat to public order and the integrity of the justice system. The Court held that the grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS is not automatic, even after charge-sheet filing, and must be denied where the accused has shown a propensity to reoffend.
The Court also rejected the applicant’s claim of procedural irregularities in the search, noting that the case diary indicated compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, including the presence of witnesses and recording of the informer’s panchnama. The Court found no merit in the argument that the trial would be unduly prolonged as a ground for bail, particularly in light of the applicant’s history.
The Verdict
The bail application of Firu @ Fired Yadav was rejected. The Court held that his prior conviction under the NDPS Act, coupled with the commission of a fresh offence after being released on interim bail, rendered him a habitual offender and disqualified him from entitlement to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS. The trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously with the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not a Right for Habitual Offenders
- Practitioners must now argue that prior NDPS convictions, especially when followed by re-offending after interim bail, create a strong presumption against bail.
- Section 483 BNSS does not override the principle that repeated criminal conduct negates the presumption of innocence.
Misuse of Interim Bail Is a Disqualifying Factor
- Courts will treat re-offending after being released on interim bail as a deliberate abuse of judicial grace.
- In NDPS cases, such conduct is now a decisive factor under Deepak Yadav, even if the charge-sheet has been filed.
Procedural Defects Alone Won’t Secure Bail
- Alleged non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act must be substantiated with concrete evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.
- The burden shifts to the accused to prove material procedural lapses that vitiate the entire prosecution case.
