Delhi High Court – Orders
Golu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 May, 2025
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1949/2025 & CRL.M.A. 15739/2025
GOLU .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Rajiv Singh Sagar,
Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh,
APP for the State.
Insp. Vibas Pannu, ANTF,
Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 20.05.2025
1. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR
No. 31/2025 dated 30.01.2025, registered at Police Station Crime
Branch for offences under Sections 21/25 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.01.2025, a secret
information was received by the Police that a person, namely,
Shiva, who procures contraband (smack) from accused Manjeet’s
sons and supplies to different locations in Delhi would be coming
on his two-wheeler to supply contraband to accused Sagar.
3. It is alleged that pursuant to the trap laid, accused Shiva
was nabbed and a recovery of 512 grams of contraband was
made. At the instance of accused Shiva, co-accused Sagar was
identified, and his car was searched from which a recovery of
304 grams (with green polythene) and 299 grams (without green
BAIL APPLN. 1949/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 23/06/2025 at 16:20:44
polythene) of contraband was made. Some other persons were
also arrested at the instance of other accused persons and further
contraband was recovered.
4. It is alleged that accused Sagar disclosed that the present
applicant used to help him in the operation of drug supply. It is
alleged that the applicant used to collect money from another
accused namely, Khala, who used to collect money by selling
contraband.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
submits that the only evidence against the applicant, at this stage,
is the disclosure statement of accused Sagar and that the said
disclosure is not admissible in evidence in the absence of any
recovery of contraband or other corroborative material.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the
applicant. He submits that there is a recovery of commercial
quantity of contraband and consequently the bar under Section
37 of the NDPS Act would act against the applicant in the
present case. He submits that the CDR of the applicant
demonstrates that he was in regular touch with accused Sagar. He
further submits that certain photographs were found in the
mobile phone of the applicant which shows that the money was
transacted.
7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the
material on record.
8. The reply filed by the prosecution opposing the bail before
the learned Trial Court is on record and I am of the opinion that
BAIL APPLN. 1949/2025 Page 2 of 6
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 23/06/2025 at 16:20:44
no further opportunity is required to be given to file a separate
reply to oppose the present bail application.
9. 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 Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu :
(2021) 4 SCC 1, 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 are 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 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)
BAIL APPLN. 1949/2025 Page 3 of 6
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 23/06/2025 at 16:20:44
10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Phundreimayum Yas
Khan Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) : 2023 SCC OnLine Del 135,
held that when there is no material to link the applicant with the
recovery of the commercial quantity from the co-accused
persons, the rigors of Section 37 would not apply. It was further
observed that in the absence of any incriminating material; the
CDR details cannot be a ground to deny the bail.
11. Apart from the disclosure of accused Sagar, the only
material against the applicant is the existence of CDR to
demonstrate that the applicant was in touch with the accused
Sagar.
12. 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)
13. Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the
applicant and in such circumstances merely because the applicant
BAIL APPLN. 1949/2025 Page 4 of 6
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 23/06/2025 at 16:20:44
was allegedly in touch with accused – Sagar, the bar of Section
37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted.
14. It is informed that accused Sagar, on whose disclosure, the
applicant was arrested to be one of the persons who was assisting
in the operation of drug supply, has already been enlarged on bail
by order dated 24.03.2025 by the learned Trial Court.
15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that the State is considering challenging the said order,
however, it cannot be denied that the same has not been done till
date despite two months having been elapsed since accused
Sagar was enlarged on bail.
16. The role attributed to the applicant cannot be stated to be
graver than the accused Sagar. Even otherwise, the applicant is in
custody since 10.02.2025 and at this stage, the only evidence
against the applicant seems to be the disclosure statement of the
accused Sagar and some CDR to demonstrate that the applicant
was in touch with accused Sagar. As noted above, accused Sagar
has already been admitted on bail by the learned Trial Court.
17. The applicant is stated to be a young boy of 19 years and
also does not have any criminal antecedents.
18. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹20,000/- with two
sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court, on the following conditions:
a. The applicant 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. The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the
BAIL APPLN. 1949/2025 Page 5 of 6This 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 23/06/2025 at 16:20:44
country without the permission of the learned Trial
Court;
c. The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial
Court as and when directed;
d. The applicant shall provide the address where he
would be residing after his release and shall not change
the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;
e. The applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile
number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his
mobile phone switched on at all times.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned
terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MAY 20, 2025
“SK”
BAIL APPLN. 1949/2025 Page 6 of 6
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 23/06/2025 at 16:20:44