Parity in Bail Claims: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in NDPS and IPC Case Despite Criminal Antecedents - 2026-02-18

Parity in Bail Claims: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in NDPS and IPC Case

In a significant order addressing the principle of parity, the High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench) has granted bail to an accused individual involved in a complex narcotics and criminal conspiracy case. Presiding over the bail application, Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur allowed the plea of Chima Ram, alias Chmnaram, despite the severity of the charges and a history of criminal antecedents.

Case Background

The petitioner, Chima Ram, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 93/2023, registered at Police Station Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh. The case encompasses a wide array of serious charges, ranging from violations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 (Sections 8, 15, 18), and the Arms Act (Sections 3, 25), to criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 307, 353, 420, 469, 471, and 34).

The allegations pinned upon the petitioner were primarily centered on his role as a prospective purchaser of 25 kilograms of poppy straw. Having been in custody since August 14, 2025, the petitioner sought bail, arguing that the trial process would be lengthy and that he was being unfairly detained.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel vehemently argued that Chima Ram had been falsely implicated. A central pillar of the defense was the principle of parity—the claim that since other co-accused individuals had been granted bail, the petitioner deserved similar treatment.

The counsel specifically pointed to the cases of Jaswant Singh and Kamal Singh. Notably, Kamal Singh, who faced 37 criminal cases including 30 of a similar nature, had been granted bail by the High Court in August 2024. The defense maintained that given the state had already granted the liberty of bail to co-accused with arguably more extensive criminal records, maintaining the petitioner's incarceration served no constructive purpose.

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the plea, highlighting the gravity of the charges and the petitioner’s past criminal antecedents, which include 12 previous cases.

Legal Analysis and the Principle of Parity

Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur evaluated the submissions against the backdrop of current judicial precedents. While the court did not comment on the merits of the allegations, it focused on the procedural fairness of the bail process.

The court’s decision relied heavily on the established legal doctrine that similarly situated co-accused should generally be treated with consistency. By acknowledging that co-accused with similar or even more significant criminal histories had secured their release, the court accepted the argument of parity as a compelling ground to exercise its discretion under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) .

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the judiciary's adherence to consistency in custodial matters:

• "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case."
• "[The petitioner] has averred that co-accused Kamal Singh, who has criminal antecedents of 37 cases out of which thirty cases are of similar nature also got benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court."
• "On consideration of the rival submissions... and in light of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner especially on the ground of parity... I am inclined to grant benefit of bail."

Court’s Decision: A Call for Consistency

The High Court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each. The court explicitly noted that the petitioner must appear at all subsequent dates of hearing until the trial concludes.

This decision serves as a reminder to lower courts and prosecutors that while criminal antecedents are a vital factor in deciding bail, the principle of parity remains a robust check against arbitrary incarceration, even in cases involving high-stakes allegations under the NDPS Act.