Delhi High Court
Vakil Singh vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 7 July, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.07.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 4063/2024
VAKIL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dhanjay Sehrawat and Ms.
Nischal Khanna, Advocates.
versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, Ms. Shelly
Dixit and Ms. Tracy Sebasian,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J (ORAL)
1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks grant of
regular bail in case bearing number: Crime/File No.VIII/69/
DZU/2021, registered for commission of offence under Sections
8/20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 [hereafter „NDPS Act‟], at Police Station NCB, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per prosecution, are that on
08.11.2021, acting on secret information, officers of the Narcotics
Control Bureau (NCB) had seized 306 kg of ganja from the premises
of Professional Courier Company, Naraina, New Delhi. The
BAIL APPLN.4063/2024 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
consignment had been sent from Andhra Pradesh to Delhi and was
booked without valid identification documents. During inquiry, Mr.
Singha, Operations Manager of the courier company, disclosed that a
phone call had been received from Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh,
and the parcels were to be delivered to the Karol Bagh branch, where
someone would come to collect them. It was further revealed that the
suspected consignee was one Rajesh, whose mobile number was
mentioned on the parcel. Acting upon this information, the NCB
officials had transported the parcel to the Karol Bagh branch. After
some time, two individuals, namely Rajesh and Vakil Singh (present
applicant), arrived at the said office, inquired about the parcel, and
one of them, Vakil Singh, provided a copy of his Aadhaar Card and
signed the receipt to take delivery. Upon questioning, they disclosed
that they had come to collect the parcel to hand it over to the “main
party” waiting near PP Jewellers, Karol Bagh. The NCB officers
accompanied them and the parcel vehicle to the said location, where
Rajesh identified another individual and conversed with him. The
NCB officers then intercepted the said person, who disclosed his
name as Arun Kumar Azad, and was apprehended on the spot. Arun
Kumar Azad disclosed that the seized contraband was to be supplied
to one Pradeep Mandal. Later on, Pradeep Mandal was also arrested.
It is alleged that co-accused Pradeep had disclosed that the parcels
had to be further delivered to co-accused Lagnu Mahto. Pursuant to
the same, the house of co-accused Lagnu Mahto was searched and
1.4 kg of ganja and a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was recovered from there.
BAIL APPLN.4063/2024 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that
the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case, and that
he had merely accompanied co-accused Rajesh at his request. He
further contends that the prosecution‟s allegation that the applicant
had provided his Aadhaar card is false, as the consignment in
question was booked in the name of Rajesh, and there was no reason
for the applicant to furnish his Aadhaar card for its collection. He
also argues that the Investigating Officer (IO) in the present case was
not duly authorized to conduct the investigation under the provisions
of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that no recovery was made from the
applicant and that there has been an inordinate delay of 12 days in
filing the application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, whereas
Standing Order 1/88 mandates that the samples drawn from the
seized contraband must be sent to the FSL for examination within 72
hours of seizure. Non-compliance with the said requirement, it is
argued, is fatal to the prosecution‟s case. The learned counsel for the
applicant also points out that co-accused Lagnu Mahto has already
been granted bail by the learned Trial Court, co-accused Arun Kumar
Azad was granted bail by this Court on 02.04.2024, and co-accused
Pradeep Mandal was granted bail by this Court on 29.05.2024. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no past criminal antecedents,
and therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not
attracted in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant has
been in judicial custody since 08.11.2021 and has already spent about
three and a half years in incarceration as an undertrial prisoner. The
BAIL APPLN.4063/2024 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
learned counsel submits that the trial is likely to take considerable
time to conclude, and therefore, the applicant may be released on
bail. Thus, it is prayed that the present applicant be released on bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the NCB, on the other hand,
opposes the bail application and submits that a recovery of 307.400
kg of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, has been affected in the
present case. He contends that the parcel containing the contraband
was booked without valid identification or supporting documents. It
is further submitted that two persons, including the present applicant,
had arrived at the courier office in Delhi and made inquiries
regarding the said parcel. To receive the parcel, the applicant had
provided his Aadhaar card, signed the receipt, and unloaded the
parcel from the vehicle, following which both the consignee, Rajesh
Singh, and the present applicant were apprehended. The learned
counsel further states that there is clear connectivity between the
applicant and co-accused Rajesh Singh on the date of seizure, and
that recovery of commercial quantity of contraband establishes the
applicant‟s involvement. He also submits that no recovery was made
from co-accused Arun Kumar Azad, nor had he come to the courier
office to collect the parcel; therefore, the applicant cannot claim
parity with Arun Kumar Azad, who was granted bail. It is further
argued that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly
attracted in the present case, considering that the contraband
recovered is of commercial quantity.
5. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
BAIL APPLN.4063/2024 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
the parties and has perused the material available on record.
6. In the present case, the prosecution alleges that on 08.11.2021,
officers of the NCB, acting on specific intelligence, had intercepted a
consignment containing 306 kg of ganja at the premises of a courier
company in Naraina, New Delhi. The consignment had been booked
from Andhra Pradesh without valid identity documents. Upon
inquiry, the officials were informed that two individuals would
collect the parcel from the Karol Bagh branch. Subsequently, two
persons, i.e., Rajesh and the present applicant Vakil Singh had
arrived at the Karol Bagh office and attempted to collect the parcel,
following which a chain of apprehensions led to the arrest of other
co-accused, allegedly forming part of a larger drug distribution
network.
7. Insofar as the specific role of the present applicant Vakil Singh
is concerned, the record indicates that he had accompanied co-
accused Rajesh to the courier branch to take delivery of the
consignment containing 306 kgs of ganja. He is stated to have
produced his Aadhaar card, signed the parcel receipt, and assisted in
taking delivery of the parcel. Both the applicant and co-accused
Rajesh were apprehended at the spot. They had disclosed that the
consignment was to be handed over to a third person, co-accused
Arun Kumar Azad, who was also apprehended during the attempted
delivery. Furthermore, there is CDR evidence indicating
communication between the applicant and co-accused Rajesh.
BAIL APPLN.4063/2024 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
8. A copy of the alleged receipts signed by the present applicant
has been placed on record by the NCB. Significantly, no plausible
explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel for the
applicant as to why the applicant had furnished his Aadhaar card and
signed the parcel receipt if, as claimed, he had no connection with the
consignment or with co-accused Rajesh.
9. As regards the argument of parity, the co-accused persons
Arun Kumar Azad and Pradeep Mandal stand on a different footing.
There was no recovery from their possession, and unlike the
applicant, they were not the ones who had arrived to take physical
delivery of the contraband. The present applicant‟s role is far more
direct and proximate to the actual recovery and chain of possession.
Thus, the plea of grant of bail on the ground of parity is unmerited.
10. The contention that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not
attracted is also without merit. The recovery in this case pertains to
306 kg of ganja, which clearly falls under the category of commercial
quantity as per the statutory threshold. Therefore, the bar under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies. In order to grant bail in
such cases, the twin conditions under Section 37 must be satisfied.
This includes a satisfaction that there should be reasonable grounds
for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the case of
Union of India v. Prateek Shukla: (2021) 5 SCC 430, State v.
Lokesh Chadha: (2021) 5 SCC 724, and Narcotics Control Bureau
v. Mohit Aggarwal: 2022 SCC Online SC 891, it was held by the
BAIL APPLN.4063/2024 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS
Act have to be applied strictly at the time of deciding bail application
of an accused.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, the
present case does not inspire such satisfaction at this stage. Thus, in
view of the nature and gravity of allegations, the material available
on record, and the direct involvement of the applicant in taking
delivery of the contraband, this Court is of the view that the applicant
does not meet the threshold required under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act.
12. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant,
that provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act were not followed
by the NBC since there was a delay of about 12 days in filing the
application for sampling, is concerned, this Court finds the same
unmerited. In this regard, it is apposite to note that the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif: 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3848 has held that any procedural irregularity or illegality
found to have been committed in conducting the search or seizure
during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not
make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation,
inadmissible, and any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by
itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to
be released on bail.
13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no case for grant of
BAIL APPLN.4063/2024 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
bail is made out at this stage.
14. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.
15. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 07, 2025/vc
BAIL APPLN.4063/2024 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
[ad_1]
Source link