Delhi High Court – Orders
Anju vs State Nct Of Delhi on 14 August, 2025
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2413/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19122/2025
ANJU .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr.
Radhey Shayam, Mr.
Harsh Bansiwal and Ms.
Darshitha P. Mandoth,
Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP
for the State with SI Jagbir
Singh, PS Narcotics
Squad, NWD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 14.08.2025
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 565/2025 dated 12.05.2025,
registered at Police Station Jahangir Puri, for offences under
Sections 20/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act‘).
2. The Status Report is handed over in Court today and the
same is taken on record.
3. Briefly stated, on 11.05.2025, on the basis of a secret
information pertaining to supply of large quantity of contraband
(Ganja), a raiding team was constituted and co-accused Shiv
Nath and Pankaj were apprehended. It is alleged that on their
search a recovery of 27.754 Kgs of Ganja was recovered.
4. It is alleged that during the course of investigation both co-
BAIL APPLN. 2413/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 14/08/2025 at 23:55:40
accused Shiv Nath and Pankaj disclosed that they had received
this consignment from one person namely Mohan Rai, who is
stated to be absconding.
5. Co-accused Shiv Nath further disclosed that he had
supplied the contraband to the present applicant on several
occasions, whereafter the applicant was apprehended on
24.05.2025.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case.
7. He submits that applicant has been arrested solely on the
basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.
8. He further submits that there was no recovery effectuated
from the applicant at the time of arrest.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the present
applicant. She further submits that there is a recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband and thus the bar under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would act against the applicant in
the present case.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
11. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the
application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind,
such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused has committed the offence;
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of
the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the
accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
BAIL APPLN. 2413/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 14/08/2025 at 23:55:40
the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on
bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened;
etc.
12. Prima facie, the applicant has been implicated in the
present case primarily on the basis of the disclosure statement of
the accused Shiv Nath. It is relevant to note that while the
veracity of the disclosure statement of the co-accused is to be
tested at the time of the trial, this Court cannot lose sight of the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State
of Tamil Nadu (supra), wherein it was held that a disclosure
statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is
impermissible as evidence without corroboration. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment is set out below:-
“155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional
statement made before an officer designated under
Section 42 or Section 53 can be the basis to convict a
person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante
clause doing away with Section 25 of the Evidence Act,
and without any safeguards, would be a direct
infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in
Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
156. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal then goes on to follow
Raj Kumar Karwal in paras 44 and 45. For the reasons
stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not
state the law correctly, and are thus overrules by us.
Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon
these judgments, or upon the principles laid down by
these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons
given by us.
157. On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this
judgment, the judgments or Noor Aga and Nirmal Singh
Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs are correct in law. 158.
We answer the reference by stating: 158.1. That the
officers who are invested with powers under Section 53
of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the
meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of
which any confessional statement made to them would
be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the
BAIL APPLN. 2413/2025 Page 3 of 7This 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 14/08/2025 at 23:55:40
Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order
to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in
the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is pertinent to note that no recovery has been effectuated
from the applicant in the present case. It is alleged that CDR
analysis show the connectivity between the accused persons.
14. This Court, in the case of Dalip Singh v. State (NCT of
Delhi) : 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6494, had observed as under:
11. On perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that
there are two major missing links in the case of the
prosecution. There is no link established by the prosecution
between the petitioner with the alleged supplier Manoj.
Further the entire case of the prosecution, in so far as
petitioner is concerned is circumstantial i.e. based solely
on disclosure statement of a co-accused which is per
se not admissible without there being any corroboration.
Prosecution has not been able to establish any connection
between the subject offence and the bank accounts, where
the petitioner is alleged to have been depositing money or
with the holders of those accounts. Merely because the
petitioner has been having telephonic conversation with
the co-accused, would not be sufficient to hold that
petitioner is guilty of the subject offence. There is no
recovery made from the petitioner.
12. I am of the view that requirement of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act are satisfied. In so far as the petitioner is
concerned, there are reasonable grounds to believe that
petitioner is not guilty of the said offence.
(emphasis supplied)
15. Merely because the applicant was in regular touch with the
other co-accused persons, the same is not sufficient to prima
facie establish the offence against the applicant.
16. The State has contended that the applicant cannot be
enlarged on bail unless the conditions laid down in Section 37 of
BAIL APPLN. 2413/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 14/08/2025 at 23:55:40
the NDPS Act are met.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Union of India v.
Shiv Shanker Kesari : (2007) 7 SCC 798, has observed as
under:
“11. The court while considering the application for
bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called
upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the
limited purpose essentially confined to the question of
releasing the accused on bail that the court is called
upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty and records its
satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But
the court has not to consider the matter as if it is
pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a
finding of not guilty.
12. Additionally, the court has to record a finding that
while on bail the accused is not likely to commit any
offence and there should also exist some materials to
come to such a conclusion.”
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Muslim v.
State (NCT of Delhi) : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, has reiterated
the law in regard to Section 37 of the NDPS Act as under:
“20. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions
under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that
the accused is not guilty and would not commit any
offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail
altogether, resulting in punitive detention and
unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the
only manner in which such special conditions as enacted
under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional
parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on
a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever
the bail application is made) that the accused is not
guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete
denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as
those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”
19. In the present case, as discussed above, there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of
BAIL APPLN. 2413/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 14/08/2025 at 23:55:40
the alleged offence.
20. Undisputedly, nothing has been recovered from the
applicant in that regard and the arrest of the applicant, in the
opinion of this Court, was not required when the only allegations
is on the basis of disclosure of co-accused that contraband was
supplied to the applicant sometime in the past.
21. The applicant is also stated to have clean antecedents. In
view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the embargo
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not come in the way of
granting bail to the applicant.
22. In view of the facts of the case, the applicant has prima
facie established a case for grant of bail.
23. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of
₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following
conditions:
a. She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any
manner whatsoever;
b. She shall under no circumstance leave the boundaries of
the country without informing the concerned IO/SHO;
c. She shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and
when directed;
d. She shall provide the address where she would be residing
after her release and shall not change the address without
informing the concerned IO/ SHO;
BAIL APPLN. 2413/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 14/08/2025 at 23:55:40
e. She shall, upon her release, give her mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep her mobile phone
switched on at all times.
24. In the event of there being any FIR/ DD entry/ complaint
lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek
redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
25. It is clarified that any observations made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application
and should not influence the outcome of the Trial and also not be
taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
26. The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned
terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
AUGUST 14, 2025
‘KDK’
BAIL APPLN. 2413/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 14/08/2025 at 23:55:40
[ad_1]
Source link