In a ruling delivered on 17 September 2026, the Delhi High Court considered whether an accused in a major narcotics case should be released on bail because a co-accused had already been granted that relief. The case, Baljeet Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026, before Justice Prateek Jalan, throws a harsh light on how drug laws treat people who are allegedly found with contraband—and how the idea of parity among co-accused works in practice.

The applicant, Baljeet Kumar, was arrested on 2 December 2024 after two parcels containing a total of 58.52 kg of ganja were intercepted. The parcels had been sent by courier from Visakhapatnam to Delhi. According to the prosecution, Kumar and another man, Munip Mahato, arrived on a scooter to collect the parcels. Kumar allegedly produced an Aadhaar card in the name of Vishambar Ram and signed for the delivery. Both were arrested on the spot.

Kumar’s lawyer argued that his client deserves bail because Munip Mahato, the co-accused who was allegedly in direct contact with the supplier, was granted bail by a Sessions Court on 7 January 2026. The counsel also pointed out that the Aadhaar card was exchanged between Mahato and the alleged supplier, Munna, and that Kumar had merely accompanied Mahato to collect the parcel.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastava, opposed the plea. They submitted a status report highlighting that Munip Mahato’s role was limited to collecting the parcels with Kumar, whereas Kumar had actually signed for and received the parcels using the fake Aadhaar card. The Sessions Court, while granting bail to Mahato, had noted that the prosecution’s case against him relied primarily on a confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, with no corroborating call records or financial transactions.

What the Court Must Decide

The core legal question is whether Kumar can claim parity with Munip Mahato. The principle of parity in bail law says that co-accused in similar circumstances should be treated similarly. But the Delhi High Court noted a crucial distinction: while Mahato was allegedly in contact with the supplier, Kumar’s photograph was used on the Aadhaar card used to take delivery. The Court observed that the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing.

The Court also referred to the bail granted to co-accused Munna by the High Court on 21 May 2025 (BAIL APPLN. 1359/2025), noting that no recovery was made from Munna, whereas the recovery was made from Kumar and Mahato.

The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, make bail difficult in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. Section 37 requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. For Kumar, the fact that he allegedly signed for the parcels and used a fake ID may make it harder to meet that threshold.

Why This Matters Beyond the Courtroom

This case is not just about one man’s liberty. It highlights how the criminal justice system treats people who are allegedly at the bottom of the drug supply chain—the couriers and receivers who are often poor, poorly represented, and easily replaced. The real masterminds, like the alleged supplier Munna, may secure bail more easily because no drugs were found on them. Meanwhile, those caught holding the parcel face the full weight of the law.

The use of a fake Aadhaar card adds another layer. It shows how identity documents can be misused in illegal trade. For ordinary citizens, the case is a reminder that the war on drugs often catches the small fish while the big ones swim free. It also underscores the importance of legal representation: Kumar’s lawyer argued that he was merely present, but the prosecution’s narrative paints him as an active participant.

The Delhi High Court’s eventual decision will be closely watched. It will clarify how courts weigh parity claims when co-accused have different roles and evidence against them. For now, Baljeet Kumar remains in custody, waiting to learn whether the scales of justice tip in his favour.

“The role assigned to the applicant/accused appears confined to the act of collecting the parcels with the co-accused Baljeet Kumar. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged parcels were received by the co-accused Baljeet under his signature.” — Sessions Court order dated 07.01.2026

The High Court has not yet pronounced its final order on Kumar’s bail plea. The matter remains pending.