Could Legal Parity in Cannabis Cases Influence U.S. Courts? Lessons from a Mumbai Court’s Decision in a Major Drug Seizure

In a notable legal development overseas, a Mumbai court granted bail to Abid Hanif Qureshi, a man arrested in connection with one of the city's largest cannabis seizures, involving over 453 kg of the drug. The court's decision was largely based on the principle of legal parity, reflecting a growing trend that could hold implications for similar cases in the United States.

Qureshi was detained on February 5, 2021, with 58 kg of cannabis in his possession, following a police operation that initially targeted the primary suspect, Ashok Manik Mhatre. Mhatre was apprehended after authorities seized 345 kg of cannabis from his premises in January 2021. Subsequent investigations linked two additional suspects, including Qureshi, to the case, leading to further seizures.

Despite the severity of the charges under India's Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Qureshi's defense argued that his arrest was solely based on the testimony of co-accused individuals, with no direct evidence of contraband found on him.

This argument resonated with the court, especially since two other co-accused had already been granted bail. Citing the principle of parity, the court extended the same relief to Qureshi, requiring him to post a personal bond of ₹1 lakh (approximately $1,350 USD) for his release.

This case highlights the importance of legal parity in drug-related offenses, a principle that could have significant implications if applied more broadly in U.S. courts. In the United States, where cannabis laws vary widely across states, legal parity could become a critical factor in ensuring fairness in cases involving multiple defendants.

As the U.S. continues to grapple with evolving cannabis laws, the approach taken by the Mumbai court may offer valuable insights into balancing justice and fairness in complex drug cases.

Should U.S. courts consider legal parity in cannabis-related bail decisions?