Delhi High Court – Orders
State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi vs Deepa Singh on 14 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~20 & 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18342/2025
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP.
Inspector Ritesh and ASI Ritesh, Anti
Narcotics, Square Outer Distt, P.S.
Sultanpuri.
versus
DEEPA SINGH .....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh
Jaiswal, Mr. Pradeep Chaturvedi and
Mr. Gyan Ranjan Kashyap,
Advocates.
+ CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18347/2025
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP.
Inspector Ritesh and ASI Ritesh, Anti
Narcotics, Square Outer Distt, P.S.
Sultanpuri.
versus
ANURADHA @ CHIKU .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh
Jaiswal, Mr. Pradeep Chaturvedi and
Mr. Gyan Ranjan Kashyap,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 14.07.2025
1. The present petitions filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 1 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19731) impugns separate orders dated 13th June, 20252
in BAIL APPLN. 1191/2025 and BAIL APPLN. 1192/2025 passed by ASJ,
North West Rohini Court, granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents. The
said decisions have been passed in proceedings arising out of FIR No.
186/2025 registered under Sections 21(c)/22(B)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropics Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at P.S. Sultanpuri.
2. In compliance with the directions of the Court, reply on behalf of the
Respondents handed over across the Board, is taken on record.
3. Considering that the reasoning given in the impugned orders for
granting pre-arrest bail is identical in both the petitions and that the grounds
urged by both sides are also common, it is considered appropriate to decide
the instant petitions by way of a common order.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
4.1. The Respondents in the present petitions, Anuradha @ Chiku and
Deepa Singh, are sisters who stand implicated in the afore-mentioned FIR,
along with their brother, Amit (co-accused), and their mother, Kusum (co-
accused). On 10th March, 2025, confidential information was received by SI
Ankur that Amit, along with his mother Kusum, was engaged in operating a
narcotics business, employing workers to sell heroin on their behalf. The
informant further disclosed that Amit and Kusum had secured their
residence at E-4/13, Sultanpuri, Delhi, with metal gates and CCTV
1
“Cr.P.C”
2
“the impugned orders”
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 2 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
surveillance. It was also reported that Amit would be travelling in his
vehicle from Mangolpuri Flyover to his residence in Sultanpuri between
4:30 PM and 5:30 PM, carrying heroin. Acting on this intelligence, a raiding
party was constituted and the suspected vehicle was intercepted near
Mangolpuri Flyover. The driver, introducing himself as Ajay and identifying
as Amit’s brother, confirmed that Amit was present at his residence and
offered to lead the police team there. At around 6:00 PM, the police team
reached E-4/13, Sultanpuri, where Amit was found. A notice under Section
50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him, however, he declined to be
searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Upon conducting a
search of his person and clothes, no narcotics were recovered. A subsequent
search of the premises led to the recovery of 11 packets of heroin weighing
383.53 grams including packaging, which amounted to 352.46 grams net
weight. Additionally, 10 strips of Tramadol tablets and certain indigenous
Ayurvedic medicines were also recovered; the total weight of the Tramadol
capsules was 47.09 grams. During the search, besides Amit, three other
individuals, namely Ajayjeet, Lekhraj @ Gannu, and a woman named
Shivani who were also present were searched on site. Thereafter, Amit was
apprehended, the present FIR was registered and investigation commenced.
4.2 During the course of investigation, disclosure statement of Amit, was
recorded. He confessed that from the proceeds of the sale of narcotics, his
mother, Kusum, had acquired properties bearing Nos. E-4/13 and E-4/12,
Sultanpuri. He further admitted that the narcotics were distributed by
himself, his mother and his sisters. The investigation revealed that the
Respondents, along with Kusum, assisted Amit in operating a drug
syndicate. Amit stated that the Respondents actively facilitated the
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 3 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
trafficking and concealment of narcotic substances and, together with the co-
accused Kusum, benefited from the proceeds derived from the drug
syndicate.
4.3 Amit disclosed that a Scorpio (DL8CBA4642) was purchased by his
brother-in-law, a black Toyota Fortuner (ML10F0001) was purchased by
Anuradha, and he himself purchased a Maruti Swift (DL9CBE1701). He
further stated that he owned the property bearing No. E-4/16, Sultanpuri,
while the ground floor of the property at E-4/57, Sultanpuri, was rented from
one Moolchand for INR 3,00,000/-.
4.4 Pursuant to his disclosure, keys and registration certificates for a bike
(DL8SCS5084) and the Maruti Swift (DL8CBE1701) were recovered.
Additionally, cash amounting to INR 13,10,435/- and 69 grams of gold,
along with other jewellery, were recovered from a safe located at property
No. E-4/57, Sultanpuri. At property No. E-4/13, Sultanpuri, cash totalling
INR 14,353/- and jewellery items were recovered from a safe stated to be
Deepa’s. In light of these findings, notices were issued to the Respondents
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
4.5. As the Respondents failed to co-operate with the investigation and did
not join the investigation process, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued
against them.
4.6. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and by
order dated 24th May, 2025, charges were framed against the accused Amit.
Subsequently, by order dated 26th May, 2025, the Sessions Court granted
regular bail to Amit. Relying on the said order, the Respondents moved an
application for anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the impugned orders
dated 13th June, 2025.
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 4 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
5. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State, assails the impugned orders
on the following grounds:
5.1. The allegations against the Respondents are grave and serious in
nature. The Respondents and their family are running a drug syndicate and
till now only Amit has been apprehended and Kusum is absconding. Thus,
the Respondents’ custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the
conspiracy.
5.2. The Sessions Court failed to take into account that Non-Bailable
Warrants had been issued against the Respondents. It is well-settled that
when warrants for arrest or proclamations have been issued, pre-arrest bail
should be granted only in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A person
who persistently defies the orders of the Court and continues to abscond is
not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5.3. The impugned orders proceed on an erroneous premise that there is no
direct evidence against the Respondents. This conclusion overlooks the
material unearthed during investigation, including the disclosure statement
of Amit, which explicitly attributes an active role to the Respondents and
their mother, Kusum, in facilitating the narcotics trade. This statement also
led to the recovery of cash and jewellery, purportedly belonging to Deepa,
from the premises at E-4/13, Sultanpuri.
5.4. The investigation has revealed substantial deposits in the bank
accounts of both Respondents, amounting to several crores of rupees during
the period 2023 to 2025. Notably, neither Respondent is engaged in any
lawful business activity that could explain such significant inflows. In
particular, Anuradha, who is only 23 years old, has no known source ofCRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 5 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
lawful income. These unexplained financial transactions strongly suggest
proceeds of illicit activities and necessitate thorough custodial interrogation,
an aspect the Sessions Court completely failed to consider.
5.5. The Sessions Court also overlooked additional incriminating evidence
in the form of electronic data, including transcripts and voice recordings
retrieved from the mobile phones of co-accused which clearly implicate the
Respondents in the alleged offence.
6. Mr. Rahul Sharma, counsel for Respondents strongly opposes the
request made by the State, and submits as follows:
6.1. The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail only after a careful and
comprehensive consideration of the material on record. The Court was duly
satisfied that no case for custodial interrogation was made out against the
Respondents.
6.2. The Respondents have no previous criminal antecedents, nor have
they ever been implicated in any offence under the NDPS Act. Their mere
familial relationship with the co-accused Amit and Kusum cannot form the
sole basis for their implication. Moreover, it is significant that only an
intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from Amit, who has
already been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 26th
May, 2025.
6.3. The entire conduct of the Respondents in relation to the raid and
subsequent registration of the FIR is tainted with procedural irregularities.
Pertinently, one of the members of the raiding team was later appointed as
the Investigating Officer, which is impermissible in law and undermines the
fairness of the investigation. This fact was not disclosed in the chargesheet.
The omission casts serious doubt on the integrity of the proceedings.
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 6 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
Therefore, the State’s demand for custodial interrogation appears to be an
attempt to cover up these irregularities.
6.4. With respect to the alleged suspicious bank transactions, it is
submitted that the majority of these entries pertain to online gaming
activities. In any event, the statements of account relied upon by the State do
not form part of the chargesheet and hence, cannot be relied upon to justify
the demand for custodial interrogation at this stage.
6.5. Reliance is also placed on the freezing order dated 2nd July, 2025,
passed by the competent authority under Section 68F(2) of the NDPS Act, to
emphasize that the bank accounts of the Respondents were not even a part of
the freezing order.
6.6. There is no direct evidence to implicate the Respondents and entire
case of the State rests only on a disclosure statement, which does not have
any evidentiary value as it has not led to any recovery.
6.7. The Respondents have consistently demonstrated their willingness to
co-operate with the investigation. In fact, following the grant of anticipatory
bail, the Respondents expressly communicated their readiness to join the
investigation and have called upon the State to facilitate the same. Instead of
pursuing this course, the State has chosen to assail the order granting bail
through the present petitions.
6.8. It is further argued that the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is
the exception” is firmly entrenched in our constitutional framework
safeguarding personal liberty. Mere allegations or perceived involvement
cannot justify pre-trial incarceration, especially when there is no
demonstrable necessity for custodial interrogation. The Respondents can be
effectively confronted with any material, including digital evidence or
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 7 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
banking transactions, during the course of a regular investigation without
resorting to their detention.
6.9. Reliance is also placed on the proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C in
view of the fact that both the Respondents are women, and a lenient view be
taken.
6.10. Reliance is also placed on the judgement in Ms. Shreya Jha v. CBI3
to argue that bail cannot be denied to the Respondents merely because
deposits have been made in the accounts of the Respondents.
ANALYSIS
7. The Court has considered the afore-noted contentions. Before delving
into the merits of the rival contentions, it is necessary to reiterate the well-
settled principle that once bail has been granted, it should not ordinarily be
cancelled unless there are strong and cogent reasons indicating that the
concession of bail has been misused or that the accused has attempted to
subvert the administration of justice. The Supreme Court, in Deepak Yadav
v. State of U.P.4, has held that bail once granted should not be mechanically
cancelled, and cancellation is justified only if there is evidence that the
accused has misconducted himself or if new circumstances arise that warrant
such a course. Further, in Vipan Kumar v. State of Punjab5 it was
emphasized that bail may be cancelled where the order granting it is found
to be arbitrary, based on irrelevant considerations, or suffering from non-
application of mind.
8. At the same time, it is equally well-established that the order granting
3
2007:DHC:601
4
(2022) 8 SCC 559
5
2021 SCC OnLine SC 854
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 8 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
bail must reflect due application of mind to the material on record and the
nature and gravity of the accusations. Where the Court finds that the order
granting bail has been passed without proper appreciation of material
evidence or on an erroneous understanding of law, resulting in miscarriage
of justice, such an order is liable to be set aside.
9. In order to appreciate the rationale adopted by the Sessions Court
while concluding that custodial interrogation of the Respondents was not
necessary in the present case involving serious narcotics offences, it is
apposite to reproduce the relevant excerpt of the impugned orders:
“8. On perusal of the file, it is revealed that the main accused Amit
had been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.05.2025. In the bail order
of accused Amit, it is stated that finally a case of intermediate quantity
was made out and charges were framed for intermediate quantity against
the main accused Amit. There is no recovery from the present
applicant/accused and the prosecution has not shown any direct evidence
to implicate the present applicant and there is no previous involvement of
the present applicant. It was submitted by the IO that the account of the
applicant has to be verified. As the account is within the knowledge of the
IO, the investigation can be conducted in this regard and the same is not a
ground to deny bail to the applicant/accused. It is also not the case of the
prosecution that the applicant is owner of the premises. Therefore, the
present applicant/accused is admitted to anticipatory bail on furnishing
of personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with one surety in like
amount on following conditions:
a) The applicant is directed to reside at the given address, if there is
any change in the address, she is directed to intimate the same to the
Investigating Officer;
b) The applicant is directed to report to the concerned Police Station
twice in a week i.e. every Tuesday and Friday and shall join the
investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and an
advance intimation of 24 hours be given to the applicant;
c) The applicant is directed to give all her mobile numbers to the
Investigating Officer and to keep them operational at all times:
d) The applicant directed to attend all the proceedings of the Trial
Court through Virtual Court or physically, as the case may be or as per
direction of ld. Trial Court.
e) Violation of any of the above conditions by the applicant would result in
the immediate cancellation of the bail granted.”
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 9 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
10. A perusal of the aforesaid extract reveals that the Sessions Court
exercised its “extraordinary” discretionary jurisdiction primarily on three
grounds: only intermediate quantity was recovered from the main accused
Amit; no recovery was effected from the Respondents and no direct
evidence was placed on record implicating them. However, these
conclusions suffer from fundamental fallacies.
11. The Sessions Court’s reliance on the principle of parity with co-
accused Amit, who was granted regular bail is also erroneous. First, Amit
was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation, which allowed the
investigating agency to extract vital information and undertake critical
recoveries. In stark contrast, the Respondents have persistently evaded
arrest, despite the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, thereby frustrating
investigation. Second, the principles governing grant of anticipatory (pre-
arrest) bail are materially distinct from those applicable to post-arrest
(regular) bail. The principle of parity cannot be invoked mechanically across
these different procedural stages. Particularly, anticipatory bail is intended
as an extraordinary remedy, to be sparingly granted in exceptional
circumstances where the applicant has demonstrated co-operation and
absence of flight risk. The Respondents’ continuous evasion and non-
cooperation militates against these principles. Consequently, the grant of
regular bail to Amit cannot, by any measure, form the basis for extending
the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Respondents. The Sessions Court’s
approach, therefore, reflects a misappreciation of settled legal principles and
warrants interference.
12. It is imperative to note that the issue of recovery from the
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 10 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
Respondents could not have arisen at the stage of the raid, as they were
neither present at the premises nor apprehended alongside the other co-
accused Amit. Their absence during the raid cannot, by itself, negate their
involvement, especially when the allegations pertain to active participation
in narcotics syndicate, financial linkages and management of proceeds of
crime. Thus, the Sessions Court’s observation regarding absence of recovery
is neither determinative nor dispositive of their culpability.
13. This brings the Court to the critical question of whether the Trial
Court was justified in holding that custodial interrogation of the
Respondents was not warranted, premised on an alleged “lack of direct
evidence” against them. In this regard, the material placed by the State
assumes considerable significance. The State has pointed out that the bank
account [Account No. xxxxxxx460 at Kotak Mahindra Bank] in the name of
Anuradha @ Chiku, has credit entries of approximately INR 71,00,000/-
from 8th January, 2023, to 15th April, 2025. Moreover, another account
[Account No. xxxxxxx066 at Kotak Mahindra Bank], opened in the name of
“Ankush Tukaramji Bhowate” using Anuradha’s PAN details and having
Kusum (the mother) as nominee, contains credits aggregating to INR
52,00,000/- between 22nd February, 2023 and 29th November, 2024.
Similarly, the bank account [Account No. xxxxxxx256 at Kotak Mahindra
Bank] maintained by Deepa Singh shows credit entries totalling
approximately INR 1.5 Crores from 17th April, 2023 to 20th March, 2025.
Significantly, counsel for the Respondents has categorically conceded that
neither of the Respondents is engaged in any lawful business activity and
there is no GST registration in their names. The explanation offered, that
these amounts pertain to “online gaming”, in the opinion of this Court, at
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 11 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
best, is a tenuous and partial justification. Even if certain credits might
plausibly be attributed to online gaming, this does not convincingly account
for the sheer magnitude, pattern and sources of funds reflected in these
accounts. The State has further highlighted that a significant number of these
entries consist of cash deposits and UPI transfers, which remain wholly
unexplained. While these banking transactions may not, by themselves,
constitute “direct evidence” of the offence in a narrow technical sense, they
nonetheless form an integral part of the incriminating circumstantial chain.
The volume and pattern of these substantial, unexplained cash flows point
towards possible laundering or layering of illicit proceeds, and thus call for
thorough scrutiny. These suspicious transactions undeniably strengthen the
necessity for custodial interrogation to unravel the underlying financial trail
and expose the larger conspiracy, if any. It is, therefore, manifest that the
Trial Court’s reasoning disregarding these material aspects is legally
untenable and cannot be sustained.
14. The Respondents have sought to rely upon the decision in Shreya Jha
to contend that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of deposits
reflected in their bank accounts. In Shreya Jha, a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court indeed held that the mere presence of monetary deposits in the
account of an accused could not, by itself, form sufficient basis to frame
charges, particularly when the accused was sought to be implicated solely by
virtue of her familial relationship with the primary accused. However, this
reliance is entirely misplaced. It must be underscored that the observations
in Shreya Jha were made in the context of a challenge to an order framing
charge. The issue there was whether a prima facie case existed to proceed to
trial, not whether custodial interrogation was warranted at the investigative
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 12 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
stage. The standards applicable to anticipatory bail are materially distinct
and far more stringent than those governing discharge or framing of charge,
which mandates custodial interrogation to secure evidence. Moreover, in the
present case, the bank deposits are not the sole incriminating circumstance
but are part of a broader web of financial and circumstantial evidence,
including disclosure statements, property recoveries, and unexplained cash
flows, which collectively justify deeper investigation. Accordingly, Shreya
Jha does not advance the case of the Respondents and stands clearly
distinguishable.
15. At this juncture, the Court also notes the additional material unearthed
during the investigation, which includes WhatsApp chat logs retrieved from
co-accused Amit’s mobile device and voice recordings recovered from the
phone of co-accused Lekhraj @ Gannu. In particular, the voicenotes
exchanged between Amit and an individual referred to as ‘Samar Bhai’
reveal that Amit explicitly directed suppliers to collect narcotics from his
mother and sisters. The terminology and expressions used in these
conversations prima facie indicate a structured and deliberate co-ordination
involving the Respondents, rather than any casual or incidental reference. It
is pertinent that despite the issuance of notices, Samar has consistently
evaded the investigation, further raising concerns regarding the extent of the
syndicate’s operations and the Respondents’ involvement therein.
16. Further, in the voice recordings recovered from Lekhraj @ Gannu’s
mobile phone, there are explicit references to Deepa Singh. In these
recordings, Deepa is identified as the primary point of contact for resolving
complaints related to the poor quality of heroin and for arranging the
replacement of defective consignments. Such references, in light of the facts
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 13 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
of the case, prima facie suggest her active participation not merely in
ancillary support, but also in operational aspects of the drug distribution
network, including quality control, customer grievance redressal and
logistical management. Coupled with the financial transactions and cash
recoveries already discussed, these materials substantiate a prima facie case
indicating the Respondents’ substantive and direct involvement in the illicit
trade, necessitating thorough custodial interrogation to unravel the full scope
of their activities.
17. Moving beyond the Respondents’ individual roles, the material
gathered during the investigation appears to support the State‘s case that the
accused persons, including the Respondents, were operating as part of a
structured and organized drug syndicate. The Court is apprised that multiple
properties, registered in the names of other co-accused, are suspected to be
proceeds of criminal activity, and steps have already been taken to freeze
these assets. The Respondents are alleged to have knowingly permitted the
use of these properties for the storage, trafficking, and concealment of
narcotic substances.
18. Additionally, secure mechanized locks and CCTV surveillance
systems have been seized from these properties, including E-4/57 and E-
4/13, Sultanpuri, Delhi. These properties are also equipped with escape
routes. The State contends that the manner in which these premises have
been structurally modified clearly indicates an intent to obstruct law
enforcement operations. This allegation is supported by recovery memos
and site inspection reports placed on record.
19. The State also emphasizes that there has been intentional suppression
and destruction of evidence, specifically the DVR of the CCTV system,
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 14 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
initially produced by the defence which was found to have been deliberately
erased prior to the raid. This selective deletion of footage indicates an
attempt to destroy material evidence which fulfils the ingredients of an
offence under Section 238 of BNS.
20. Viewed holistically, the material placed before the Court indicates the
existence of a larger, organised criminal design in which the Respondents
appear to be active participants. While the evidentiary value of the material
relied upon by the State is a matter to be determined at the stage of trial, the
limited question before this Court is whether, in view of the material
gathered during investigation warrants denial of the State’s request for
custodial interrogation.
21. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that
the decision of the Sessions Court is not sustainable. The material placed
before the Court, as noted above, is sufficiently compelling to justify the
State’s request for custodial interrogation. The State seeks to ascertain the
supply chain, the source of financial transactions reflected in the
Respondents’ bank accounts, their involvement in the narcotics trade and the
nature of their association with their mother, Kusum, who, as noted earlier,
has a history of involvement in NDPS cases. The State also needs to
ascertain the source of the acquisition of properties suspected to have been
purchased using drug proceeds and the Respondents’ alleged conscious and
active efforts to conceal assets derived from criminal activity. As the
investigation in respect of these aspects is ongoing, the fact that the recovery
from one of the co-accused is of intermediate quantity, by itself, could not
have been a ground sufficient for the Sessions Court to reject the State’s
request for custodial interrogation.
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 15 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
22. As regards the applicability of proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C, the
Court is fully conscious of the fact that the present petitions concern two
accused who are women, and is equally mindful of the special consideration
often extended to women under the criminal justice system. However, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the State’s request for
custodial interrogation is not only justified but imperative for an effective
and fair investigation.
23. In light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned orders dated 13 th
June, 2025, granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents, are hereby
quashed.
24. It is clarified that the observations made above are only for the
purpose of deciding the State’s challenge to the bail order, and none of the
observations shall affect the merits of the case.
25. Disposed of along with pending applications.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 14, 2025/as
CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 16 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:00
[ad_1]
Source link