4.30 kg Charas in Car Dashboard: Supreme Court Grants Bail After Investigation Ends, Rejects Parity Plea

Published: 2 November 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court granted bail to Gurpreet Singh @ Lucky, an accused under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act after 4.30 kg of charas was found in the dashboard/LED panel area of a car in which he was travelling with a co-accused (paras 3, 7). It refused him parity with another co-accused already on bail, who was not in the car, but held him entitled to bail as the investigation is over and no antecedents are attributed to him (paras 6-7).

4.30 kg Charas in Car Dashboard: Supreme Court Grants Bail After Investigation Ends, Rejects Parity Plea

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted

Gurpreet Singh @ Lucky v. State of H.P.

Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14032 of 2026)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 30 October 2026
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi
Relevant Acts & Sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20, 25 and 29

Final Outcome

Appeal allowed and bail granted: the impugned order was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court may deem fit; pending applications were disposed of (paras 7, 9).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 30 October 2026 · Court's copy

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

Parity with a co-accused already on bail was refused, because that co-accused was not travelling in the vehicle that contained the contraband (para 6).
Whether the appellant was a receiver of a probable consignment is left to be decided after trial (para 6).
Bail was granted because the investigation has been concluded and no antecedents are attributable to the appellant; the bail terms are left to the jurisdictional court (para 7).
The co-accused who travelled in the car with the appellant cannot claim parity on the basis of this order (para 8).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

FIR No. 52/2025 was registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act after a car in which the appellant and a co-accused were travelling was intercepted (para 3). Four packets containing 4.30 kg of charas were found in the dashboard/LED panel area of the car, and both were arrested; the investigation is complete and a chargesheet has been filed (para 3). The prosecution alleges that the appellant was in constant contact with the co-accused before the seizure, had earlier bought charas in smaller quantities, and was a purchaser or receiver of the charas seized in the co-accused's car (para 4). He appealed against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order of 28.11.2025 in CRMPM No. 2603/2025.

Court's Findings

The appellant sought parity with another co-accused who had been released on bail (para 5). The Court held that he does not stand with that co-accused, who was not travelling in the vehicle that contained the contraband, so the question of releasing him on parity does not arise (para 6). Whether he was a receiver of a probable consignment that he and the co-accused in the car were to receive is an issue to be ‘thrashed out after trial’ (para 6). The Court granted bail on two facts: the investigation has been concluded, and no antecedents are attributable to the appellant (para 7). It held him entitled to be released on bail, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and left the bail terms to the jurisdictional court (para 7). It then noted that the appellant also claims to be only a passenger, and made clear that the co-accused who travelled with him cannot claim parity on the basis of this relief (para 8). The order cites no decision and does not refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Legal Principle

Parity in bail needs a comparable position: a co-accused who was not travelling in the vehicle carrying the contraband does not stand with an accused who was (para 6). Here bail followed on a concluded investigation and the absence of antecedents, and the Court expressly denied the co-accused in the car any parity from its order (paras 7-8).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For an accused arrested in an NDPS vehicle seizure, this order shows how the Court tests a parity claim: it compares positions, and a co-accused who was not in the vehicle carrying the contraband is no comparator (para 6). It also shows the Court limiting its own order so that the co-accused in the car cannot rely on it for parity (para 8). A bail plea on these lines should set out where each co-accused stood at the seizure, the stage of the investigation and the applicant's record (para 7). Compare Ved Prakash Tiwari, a Supreme Court order of 16.10.2026 on criminal antecedents in bail, and Narotam Behera, a Supreme Court order of 27.10.2026 on parity in bail.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.