Delhi High Court
Ankit Goyal vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 22 July, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 08th July 2025
Pronounced on: 22nd July 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 590/2024
ANKIT GOYAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Swarandeep Singh, Advocate
Versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shelly Dixit and Ms. Tracy
Sebastian, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present first petition under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant
of anticipatory bail in Crime No. VIII/21/DZU/2023 under Sections
8C, 22C, 23C, and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station
NCB, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. Facts as per the status report submitted by the NCB are that, on
08.05.2023, the NCB seized 14,700 Alprazolam tablets and 10,030
Tramadol tablets from a courier parcel in Mahipalpur, Delhi.
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 1 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
Investigation revealed the parcel was booked under the name Niraj
Kumar Pathak and traced to SSB Enterprise in Gwalior. Statements of
various persons were recorded, including booking clerk of SS
enterprise Mr. Pushpendra, bus driver named Mahesh, Rashid @
Munna Kulli and Pankaj Sahu, which revealed the role of the present
applicant Ankit Goyal. On 14.05.2023, Pankaj Sahu in his statement
under section 67 NDPS Act disclosed that at the instructions of
applicant, he used to receive the parcel from Jhansi bus stand and hand
over the same to the applicant, and the applicant coordinated the
consignments, shared Aadhaar details, and made payments for
booking parcels. The applicant’s mobile number was linked to chats
with the courier agent, and CDR/IP logs confirmed his location with
co-accused. He was granted interim protection by the trial court, but
he did not cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
3. The applicant later appeared and admitted using mobile
numbers and bank accounts tied to the offence. He claimed his phone
was lost but filed a report only after a co-accused was arrested. NCB’s
analysis of chats, transactions, and device records established the
applicant’s involvement in earlier consignments as well. The Trial
Court dismissed his anticipatory bail applications, noting his non-
cooperation and risk of tampering with evidence. The investigation is
ongoing to identify the larger network and the source of the
contraband.
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 2 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
Role of the applicant according to the NCB
4. The applicant is alleged to be the key conspirator in the illegal
trafficking of controlled substances, specifically Alprazolam and
Tramadol, by coordinating the procurement, concealment, and
shipment of drug consignments through intermediaries. As per
statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the applicant
instructed co-accused Pankaj Sahu to receive parcels from Jhansi,
shared an Aadhaar card in the name of a fictitious sender, arranged
payments, and communicated logistics via WhatsApp using mobile
number 9795326907. He also allegedly used a bank account belonging
to another person for transactions related to the drug parcels. Digital
evidence, including call detail records and IP logs, shows the applicant
in contact with key accused and at relevant locations during the
commission of the offence. The applicant failed to cooperate with the
investigation despite multiple notices and is suspected of attempting to
destroy evidence.
Submissions made by the applicant
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present
case arises out of Complaint No. VIII/21/DZU/2023, registered under
Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act at PS NCB, RK
Puram, New Delhi, in relation to a parcel intercepted on 08.05.2023
containing 14,700 Alprazolam tablets and 10,030 Tramadol tablets.
The name and Aadhaar of one Neeraj Kumar Pathak were affixed to
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 3 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
the parcel, and the booking was allegedly facilitated through SSB
Enterprises, Gwalior, at the instance of a person using the international
number +17605144878. The NCB claims this number was linked to
the present applicant. However, it is submitted that there is no direct
recovery from the applicant and that the entire case against him is
premised solely on uncorroborated statements recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act. It was contended that no CDRs or bank
transactions directly implicate the applicant, who is a well-educated
architect with no prior criminal record and has already joined
investigation pursuant to notice under Section 67.
6. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,SLP (Crl.) No. 5650 of
2011, wherein it was held that pre-trial incarceration amounts to
punishment and that bail is the rule, especially when there is no risk of
absconding or tampering with evidence. It was submitted that the
applicant belongs to a respectable family, has deep social roots, and is
willing to cooperate with the investigation. He has undertaken not to
tamper with any evidence, to furnish sound surety, and to abide by any
condition imposed by the Court. It was argued that continued custodial
interrogation is unwarranted, as no incriminating material linking him
directly with the contraband has been recovered. It was thus contended
that the denial of anticipatory bail would amount to an unjustified
curtailment of his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 4 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
Constitution, especially in the absence of any exceptional
circumstance warranting such refusal.
Submissions made by the Respondent/NCB
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Narcotics Control Bureau
vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant,
submitting that the investigation has revealed the applicant’s active
role in the illicit trafficking of commercial quantities of Alprazolam
(14,700 tablets) and Tramadol (10,030 tablets), seized from a parcel
intercepted at Garudavega International, Mahipalpur, New Delhi. It is
submitted that the number found on the parcel was an international
WhatsApp number, which, as per the service provider Jio, was
operated using internet services linked to the present applicant, with
matching IP logs confirming its usage by him. The co-accused
Pushpendra, in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act, identified this number as the one used to contact him
for booking the parcel.
8. Furthermore it has been submitted that, co-accused Pankaj Sahu
admitted that he had acted under the directions of the applicant and
had earlier sent multiple such drug parcels from Jhansi to Gwalior, for
which the applicant provided Aadhaar credentials in the name of one
Neeraj Kumar Pathak. Despite interim protection having been granted,
the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation and lodged a
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 5 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
missing phone report only after the arrest of co-accused Pankaj Sahu,
thereby indicating an attempt to destroy material evidence.
9. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the
applicant is necessary to ascertain the full extent of the conspiracy, the
source of the contraband, and the identities of other syndicate
members. It is alleged that the applicant has been evasive, has failed to
appear despite multiple notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,
and poses a flight risk. The learned Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala
House Courts, has already rejected two anticipatory bail applications
of the applicant, observing that the twin conditions under Section 37
of the NDPS Act are not satisfied in his favour. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State by
Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu Crl. Appeal No. 801/2024
and Anarul v. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 12621/2024, to
contend that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly and with
extreme caution in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities. In
view of the above, it is submitted that the present applicant is not
entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail and the application is liable to
be dismissed.
Analysis and Conclusion
10. Upon a perusal of the material placed on record, including the
status report filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), this Court
finds that the present case arises from a seizure of commercial
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 6 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
quantity of controlled substances, namely 14,700 tablets of
Alprazolam and 10,030 tablets of Tramadol, from a courier parcel
intercepted at Mahipalpur, New Delhi, on 08.05.2023. Investigation
has revealed that the parcel was booked using the Aadhaar identity of
one Niraj Kumar Pathak through SSB Enterprises, Gwalior.
Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, corroborated
with digital evidence including call detail records, IP logs, and
WhatsApp chats, suggest prima facie role of the applicant in
coordinating, financing, and concealing the drug consignments. The
international number linked with the parcel has been found to have
been operated using IP addresses associated with the applicant.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to join the investigation on multiple
occasions despite the grant of interim protection, raising serious
concerns about non-cooperation.
11. It is well settled that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes
stringent limitations on the grant of bail in cases involving commercial
quantities. In Vikash @ Vicky v. State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) BAIL
APPLN. 1668/2024 the co-ordinate bench of this court has inter alia
held as under;
“15. 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;
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 7 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of
the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being threatened; etc.”
12. The digital footprints, money trail, and WhatsApp conversations
between the applicant and co-accused persons, as well as the use of a
fictitious identity for parcel booking, create serious and grave
suspicion against the applicant’s involvement. These facts, at this
stage, disentitle the applicant from the protection of anticipatory bail
under the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that
there has been no direct recovery from him, and the case is based only
on Section 67 statements, is not persuasive in the present factual
matrix. In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the
Constitution Bench held that confessions under Section 67 are not
admissible as evidence unless corroborated, but this does not preclude
the investigating agency from acting on such statements during the
course of investigation. In State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar 2022
(3) RCR (Criminal) 991, the Supreme Court clearly held that the
accused may be able to take the advantage of decision in Tofan Singh
(supra) at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time
of final hearing after the conclusion of trial. However, for the purpose
of bail, the Court is not prohibited from considering such statements
when corroborated by independent material, including digital
evidence. Here, the Section 67 disclosures are substantially supported
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 8 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
by IP logs, WhatsApp chat records, and financial transactions traced to
accounts allegedly operated by the applicant. Therefore, the totality of
material on record points to an active role played by the applicant in
an organized drug trafficking operation.
14. The reliance by the applicant on the judgment of Sanjay
Chandra v. CBI (supra), is misplaced, as the said decision pertains to
economic offences and not to cases under special statutes such as the
NDPS Act involving commercial quantities. The Supreme Court has
consistently held that bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act is
governed by a distinct and elevated threshold, particularly where
Section 37 is applicable. In NCB v. Kashif Crl. Appeal no. 5544/2024
the Supreme Court reiterated that bail in NDPS cases involving
commercial quantity is an exception, not the rule. It held that
compliance with the twin conditions under Section 37, proof of prima
facie innocence and assurance of non-reoffending, is mandatory and
cumulative for grant of bail. The relevant para of the judgment reads
as under:-
“8. There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that
in the NDPS cases, where the offence is punishable with minimum
sentence of ten years, the accused shall generally be not released
on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception.
While considering the application for bail, the court has to bear
in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are
mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in
Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused
involved in the offences under the said Act. Apart from the
granting opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the otherBAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 9 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail, are the cumulative and not alternative
conditions.”
15. In the present case, not only does the applicant has failed to
satisfy the threshold conditions, but he has also shown deliberate
evasiveness and lack of cooperation just after he was given interim
protection which is evident from order dated 08.02.2024 when his
second anticipatory bail was dismissed, which justifies denial of
anticipatory relief. The subsequent lodging of a missing phone
complaint only after arrest of a co-accused is also indicative of a
possible attempt to destroy evidence.
16. This Court also finds force in the submission of the Respondent
that custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the broader
conspiracy, including the source of the contraband, the international
nexus, and identification of other members of the syndicate. The
applicant is alleged to be the key conspirator coordinating logistics,
payments, and procurement of psychotropic substances and his
custodial presence is necessary to assist the investigation. In State of
Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122, it was held that liberal grant of
bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity would defeat the
legislative mandate, and Courts must strictly adhere to the twin
conditions. As held by the Supreme Court in State v. Anil Sharma,
(1997) 7 SCC 187, custodial interrogation may be necessary for a fair
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 10 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
and effective investigation, and anticipatory bail should not be granted
in a manner that frustrates the investigation. The gravity of the
offence, the nature of material collected, and the non-cooperative
conduct of the applicant are sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory
bail. Furthermore, the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot
be ruled out given the applicant’s past conduct.
17. In Srikant Upadhyay and ors v. State of Bihar and anr.SLP
Crl. 7940/2023, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under;
“25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail
is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that
bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be
said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the
question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious
discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances
of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the
Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim
protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to
miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great
extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the
evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court
shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such
application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of
an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such
orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when
warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not
entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not
deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme,
exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then,
person(s)continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not
entitled to such grant”
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 11 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
18. In light of the above discussion, and considering the seriousness
of the offence, the amount of contraband, and the applicant’s prima
facie involvement, this Court is of the considered view that no case for
grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The twin conditions under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied in the applicant’s favour.
The investigation is at a crucial stage and the applicant’s custodial
interrogation is necessary to dismantle the drug trafficking network.
Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the application and the same
is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
JULY 22 , 2025/na
BAIL APPLN. 590/2024 Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:05:20
[ad_1]
Source link