Ajit Jaiswal vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 7 July, 2025

Delhi High Court

Ajit Jaiswal vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 7 July, 2025

                  $~7
                  *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                        Date of Decision: 07.07.2025

                  +      BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
                         AJIT JAISWAL                              .....Petitioner
                                        Through:        Mr. Rahul Gupta, Ms. Yati
                                                        Ranjan and Ms. Anuja Sihna,
                                                        Advs.
                                            versus
                         NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU          .....Respondent
                                      Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, SC with Ms.
                                               Shelly Dixit and Ms. Tracy
                                               Sebastin, Advs.
                         CORAM:
                         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
                  SHALINDER KAUR, J (ORAL)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 wherein the petitioner
seeks regular bail in case No. VIII/37/DZU/2023 dated 14.03.2024 for
offence under Section 8(c)/22(c)/23(c) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS).

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.08.2023 at around
1400 hours, Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, JIO, received secret
information that a parcel consignment bearing Airway Bill No.
781638052022 was lying at Skart Global Express Private Ltd, IGI
Airport, New Delhi, and was suspected to contain a large quantity of
narcotic/psychotropic substances. Acting on the said tip, Shri Sandeep
Kumar, JIO, constituted a raiding team and proceeded to the spot.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
Signing Date:08.07.2025 Page 1 of 8

11:20:31
Upon reaching the location, he met Shri K.K. Yadav, Security Officer,
Skart Global Express Private Ltd, and shared the information with
him. Thereafter, Shri K.K. Yadav produced the suspected parcel
bearing Airway Bill No. 781638052022 before the NCB officials.

3. After procedural compliances, the raiding team examined the
intercepted parcel, which was a white coloured carton box wrapped
with transparent tape. On one side of the parcel, certain documents
were affixed, which were duly separated from the box. The invoice
and a white paper pasted on the box reflected the sender’s address as
“Vijay Mishra S/o Surendra Mishra, 19/232-l OL, Malti Nagar,
Indrapur-Shivpur Link Road, Varanasi, Uttar Pardesh 221003, India
Phone-7518425388,[email protected]” and the address of the
receiver was mentioned as “Justin Nagy 4308 N, Peachtree RD,
Chamblee GA 30341 USA Phone + 16190925565”.

4. Upon opening the carton box, it was found to contain 10
golden-coloured ribbon rolls. The rolls contained a total of 4,990
tablets, weighing 1.706 kg of Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets 100
mg bearing Batch No. 964-20, manufactured by HAB
Pharmaceuticals and Research Limited, Pharmacity SIDCUL, Selaqui,
Dehradun.

5. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the said parcel had been
booked by a wholesaler named Om Enterprises, located at C7-22, T
Senpura Halka, Thana Chethanj, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. During the
course of inquiry, the booking agent, Rakesh Dubey, identified the
petitioner from CCTV footage dated 25.07.2023, as the individual
who had booked the aforesaid parcel, which had been booked in the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
Signing Date:08.07.2025 Page 2 of 8
11:20:31
name of one Vijay Mishra. The petitioner was subsequently
interrogated after service of notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,
and was arrested on 20.09.2023.

6. While seeking bail for the petitioner, the learned counsel, Mr.
Rahul Gupta, impressed upon that there has been non-compliance
with the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He contends that
the mandatory procedure under the said Section, pertaining to the
preparation of an inventory of the narcotic drugs, including their
quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, and numbers, was not duly
followed. He submits that the weight of the allegedly recovered
contraband is not mentioned in the report filed by the Investigating
Officer (IO), and that there was an unexplained delay of 22 days in
conducting the proceedings under Section 52A.

7. He submits that there is no evidence on record to establish that
the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband, as he
had merely collected and delivered the package to the courier office in
Varanasi at the behest of his cousin, Yash Gupta.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of
the contents of the said parcel. The learned counsel also submits that
Shri Rakesh Dubey, the booking agent, failed to identify the petitioner
during the Test Identification Parade (TIP), and therefore, the
prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel vehemently submits that, apart from the
identity of the petitioner, even the identity of the parcel itself is in
dispute, as the invoice pasted on the recovered box does not match the
copies of the invoice recovered from the petitioner’s mobile phone.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
Signing Date:08.07.2025 Page 3 of 8

11:20:31
He submits that, despite making every possible effort, the prosecution
has failed to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the
recovered parcel through the documents allegedly retrieved from his
mobile device, which do not correspond with those affixed to the
seized package.

10. It is further submitted that not only do the invoices not match,
but even the slip containing the name and particulars of the consignee
is different. While the details recovered from the petitioner’s mobile
phone were handwritten, the address affixed on the recovered parcel
was typed. The learned counsel submits that this discrepancy is
sufficient to demonstrate that the parcel allegedly booked by the
petitioner was not the same as the one recovered by the raiding team
from Skart Global Express Private Limited, IGI Airport, New Delhi.

11. The learned counsel submits that, admittedly, the names of the
accused persons were not known to the investigating agency on
01.08.2023. However, their names have been mentioned in the
Malkhana register.

12. The learned counsel further submits that the recovery was made
on 01.08.2023, whereas the sampling was conducted only on
22.08.2023, i.e., after a delay of 22 days and the FSL report was
furnished on 13.10.2023. He submits that the prosecution has, thus,
failed to ensure expeditious testing of the samples casts a serious
doubt on the integrity of the recovery of the alleged contraband.

13. The learned counsel also submits that the Investigating Agency
failed to comply with Rule 3 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
Signing Date:08.07.2025 Page 4 of 8
11:20:31
Disposal) Rules, 2022 as well as the mandatory provisions of Standing
Order No. 1/88 and Section 2.1 of Standing Order No. 1/89. He
submits that the sampling procedure adopted was flawed, as samples
were not drawn from each of the 10 rolls allegedly recovered. Instead,
only 10 tablets were taken from a single roll and weighed. Based on
the weight of those tablets, the total weight of the remaining strips was
presumed and calculated to be 1.706 kg.

14. To conclude, the learned counsel submits that the prosecution
has to examine 22 witnesses. He further submits that the petitioner has
clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. It
was argued that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
in custody, when there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the
near future.

15. The learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent,
while opposing the bail application, submits that the officials of the
NCB had seized a commercial quantity of contraband, and the
evidence collected during the investigation clearly reveals the
involvement of the petitioner in the illicit trafficking of narcotic
substances.

16. He submits that the investigation led to the recovery of digital
evidence, including WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and co-
accused Yash Gupta, pertaining to the booking of the parcel and
related instructions. Further, parcel receipts and identification
documents namely, Aadhaar Card and PAN Card in the name of Vijay
Mishra were recovered from the mobile phones of both the petitioner
and co-accused Yash Gupta. These documents were allegedly used for

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
Signing Date:08.07.2025 Page 5 of 8
11:20:31
booking the parcel bearing Airway Bill No. 781638052022.
Additional WhatsApp communications between the two co-accused
also contained discussions regarding parcel booking, tracking, and
other relevant instructions.

17. Furthermore, from the mobile phone of the petitioner parcel
booking receipts and parcel invoice of Airway Bill No. 781638052022
was recovered.

18. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the identity
of the petitioner has been clearly established through CCTV footage,
wherein he can be seen with the parcel with the booking clerk, which
is sufficient evidence against the petitioner, even though the booking
clerk, Rakesh Dubey, failed to identify him during the TIP.

19. He submits that, in view of the recovery of a commercial
quantity of contraband, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is
attracted in the present case, and therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to the grant of bail.

20. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent. There is no dispute to the fact
that the petitioner had sent the parcel in question. The primary
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, however, is that the
parcel allegedly recovered by the NCB’s raiding team is not the same
as the one booked by the petitioner. In support of this submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to certain
discrepancies in the documents. It was further submitted that the
prosecution is placing reliance merely on documents allegedly
recovered from the petitioner’s mobile phone. It is pointed out that,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
Signing Date:08.07.2025 Page 6 of 8
11:20:31
according to the petitioner’s chats, the parcel sent by him had a
handwritten address affixed to the side of the box, whereas the parcel
recovered during the raid had a typed address.

21. Furthermore, it was argued that the invoice recovered from the
seized parcel is different from the invoice retrieved from the
petitioner’s mobile phone.

22. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he
had no knowledge of the contents of the parcel and had merely sent
the same. Thus, it is submitted that he was not in conscious possession
of the substances recovered therefrom.

23. As far as this argument is concerned, it is a matter to be proved
during trial as to whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of
the substance, for which the prosecution has relied on WhatsApp chats
between the petitioner and the co-accused and the same is yet to be
proved. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has been in
custody since 20.09.2023. He has clean antecedents, and his overall
jail conduct is stated to be ‘Satisfactory’.

24. In view of the conspectus of facts and circumstances, the
petitioner is admitted to Regular Bail in the present case, on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 30,000/- with two sureties
in the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court / CMM / Duty Magistrate and further subject to the following
conditions:-

i. The Petitioner shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without
prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
ii. The Petitioner shall report at local area Police Station, once

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
Signing Date:08.07.2025 Page 7 of 8
11:20:31
a week i.e., every Saturday at 4:00 P.M for marking his
presence.

iii. The Petitioner shall immediately intimate the learned Trial
Court by way of an affidavit and to the Investigating Officer
regarding any change of residential address.
iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court as
and when the matter is taken up for hearing.
v. The Petitioner is directed to give his mobile number to the
Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times.
vi. The Petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any
inducement, threat or promise to any of the Prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.
vii. The Petitioner shall also not tamper with evidence nor
otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or
that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending Trial.

25. It is made clear that no observations made above shall
tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the petitioner’s case
and they have been made for the purpose of consideration of present
Bail Application alone.

26. A copy of this Order be sent to the Jail Superintendent
concerned for information and necessary compliance.

27. Accordingly, the present Bail Application stands disposed of.

SHALINDER KAUR, J
JULY 07, 2025/SU/SK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
BAIL APPLN. 3506/2024
Signing Date:08.07.2025 Page 8 of 8
11:20:31