[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Meena vs State(Government Of Nct Of Delhi) on 5 August, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 5th August, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025
MEENA
W/o Hari .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Javed Khan, Mr. Irfan Firdous and
Mr. Monish Ali Khan, Advocates.
versus
STATE(GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Through SHO
Cyber Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP with SI Satwant
Singh, PS: Crime Branch, Cyber Cell.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petition under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) and
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘Cr.PC‘) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant, Meena for grant of
Regular Bail in FIR No. 87/2024 under Sections 21/25/29 of the Narcotic
Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
‘NDPS’) in Session Case No. 823/2024.
2. Briefly stated, Meena w/o Hari, aged about 45 years, was arrested by
Cyber Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi on 26.04.2024 for the alleged offences
under Section 21/25/29 of NDPS Act. It is submitted that she has already
undergone judicial custody for a period of about one year four months from
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
26.04.2024.
3. It is asserted that she has been falsely implicated in this case. The entire
case of Prosecution is based on concocted and fabricated facts and the
investigations are faulty. It is alleged that she was found in possession of 100
grams of Heroin, which is intermediate quantity and the rigors of Section 37
of NDPS Act, is not attracted.
4. The Bail is sought on the grounds that no written communication of
ground of arrest was given by the Investigating Officer to the Applicant for
which reliance has been placed on Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India, (2024)
SCC 76 and Prabir Purkayashta vs. State of NCT, 2024 8 SCC 254.
5. It is further asserted that there was no compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C,
which renders the arrest illegal. Reference is made to Vihaan Kumar vs. State
of Haryana& Anr., 2025 INSC 162 wherein it has been reiterated that such
arrest is violative of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India, 1950.
6. It is further asserted that no independent persons were joined even
though the arrest was made from a crowded place. Reliance is placed on
Zakhir Hussain vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. No. 1418/2024
and Gopal Dangi vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. No.
3350/2023.
7. The next ground agitated for grant of Bail is that there was no
photography or videography conducted at the time of search and seizure, for
which reliance has been placed on Shivam vs. State NCT of Delhi, Bail APP.
No. 3312/2023 decided on 15.07.2023; Veer Singh vs. State Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, Bail APP No. 599/2024, decided on 21.10.2024; Kanchman Yonjan vs.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail APP No. 2845/2023, decided on
08.07.2024; Mohan munib vs. State, Bail APP No. 3946/2023, decided on
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
15.07.2023 and Rohan Malik vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail APP. No.
4303/2024, decided on 13.01.2024.
8. It is further asserted that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of
NDPS Act as the Applicant has been arrested solely on Disclosure Statement
of co-accused, Akhil Dass, between sunset and sunrise. Therefore, search
could not have been conducted without obtaining warrant or authorization, in
terms of Section 42(1) of NDPS Act. This non-compliance of mandatory
requirement is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. Reliance is placed on
Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 953.
9. Furthermore, once the contraband is recovered, there are other
provisions like Section 57 which are mandatorily required to be complied. It
is to provide fairness in the process of recovery and investigation, which is
one of the basic features of criminal jurisprudence. It is a provision aimed at
protection of innocent persons from false implication. Reliance is placed on
Gangaram Rama Gundkar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002
CRILJ2578 Bombay High Court.
10. It is also asserted that there is a violation of Section 50 of NDPS in so
much as there are lots of cutting on the body of the Notice of Section 50 of
NDPS Act.
11. It is further submitted that the Applicant is in judicial custody for a long
period. The recovery of contraband has already been affected. Her custodial
interrogation is not required. Any further incarceration would in fact amount
to conviction without trial. Hence, the prayer is made that she be granted Bail.
12. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is
stated that on 24.04.2024, on a specific intelligence input, raiding team was
constituted and Akhil Dass was apprehended from a bus. He was carrying one
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
black bag over his left shoulder and after giving Notice under Section 50 of
NDPS Act, search was conducted of the bag. A transparent polythene pouch
tied with a red rubber band was recovered, which contained light pink
powder. A Field Test was conducted to confirm that the substance was
Heroin. The net weight of the Heroin was 1097 grams (excluding the pouch
weight of 07 grams) which qualifies as Commercial quantity under the NDPS
Act.
13. After due compliance of all the formalities, present FIR No. 87/2024
was registered. During interrogation, Akhil Dass made a Disclosure
Statement that he had procured the recovered Heroin from the
Applicant/Meena and that she was regular supplier and had made a
WhatsApp call to him in this regard, on 25.04.2024.
14. On the basis of electronic surveillance, CDR analysis and specific lead
from Akhil Dass, the Applicant/Meena was apprehended on 26.04.2024 near
Metcalf House, GTK Road, Delhi. Due compliance of the provisions by
giving Notice under Section 50 of NDPS was made and 100 grams of Heroin
was recovered from her Salwar’s pocket. The investigations revealed the
name of the Applicant was mentioned in the Disclosure Statement of the
co-accused. Her identity was established via CDR location analysis,
WhatsApp communication and physical recovery.
15. The Bail is opposed on the ground that any technical lapses regarding
the supply of written arrest grounds, do not entitle the Applicant to Bail for
which reliance has been placed on Union of India vs. Dharamendra Prasad,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 850 and Union of India vs. Bal Mukund, (2009) 12
SCC 161. It is also submitted by learned Prosecutor that this issue is pending
before the Apex Court for final decision.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
16. It is further contended that the Applicant was involved in the past in the
FIR No. 394/2018 under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Loni Kotwali, UP.
17. The Bail is further opposed on the ground that total recovery of 1347
grams of heroin was made from all the five accused, which is a commercial
quantity and thereby rigors of Section 37 of NDPS, are attracted.
18. It is claimed that in fact, it is an Organized Drug Syndicate. The
Applicant is a key link in an interstate narcotic drug distribution network, as
evidenced by multiple disclosures/WhatsApp communications, CDR analysis
and direct recovery from her person. Considering the nature and gravity of the
offence and the role of the Applicant, there is a strong possibility that she may
abscond or re-engage in similar conduct.
19. There is also a risk of her tampering with evidence or influencing the
witnesses. Continued custody is necessary to ensure her presence during the
trial. Though, the Chargesheet has been filed, but further investigations under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C is required to uncover the broader supply chain, money
trails and additional co-conspirators involved in the network.
20. Reliance is placed on State of Kerala vs. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122
and Union of India vs. Rattan Malik @ Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624 wherein it
has been held that the Bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions
envisaged under Section 37 of NDPS Act, are satisfied.
21. Reliance has also been placed on Union of India vs.Ram Samujh,
(1999) 9 SCC 429 wherein it was observed that the legislative mandate is
required to be adhered and followed.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in NCB vs. Mohit Aggarwal,
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1001-1002/2022, Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
6128-29/2021 held that the expression “reasonable grounds” used in Clause
(b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and
grounds for the Court to believe that the Applicant is not guilty of the alleged
offence. It is submitted that the trial is at the initial stage and the Bail would
hamper the trial and defeat the object of NDPS Act. Therefore, the Bail
Application is opposed.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
23. As per the case of the Prosecution, the Disclosure Statement was made
by Akhil Dass that he had received a call from the Applicant that she can
supply the drugs. Accordingly, a trap was laid and the Applicant was arrested
on 26.04.2024.
24. She is in judicial custody since then. Chargesheet against her already
stands filed in the Court. Three co-accused namely, Ashfaaq, Ansar and Saif
Ali Khan @ Kallu Khan, two of whom were found in possession of
intermediate quantify and one from whom nothing was recovered, have
already been admitted to Bail.
25. Though the State has claimed that in all 1097 grams of Heroin, had
been recovered from all the accused persons, but it is the specific case that the
Applicant was apprehended and 100 grams Heroin was recovered, which is an
intermediate quality. It cannot be the case that where Heroin is recovered
from the accused persons separately, it can be ollectively attributed to the
Applicant. There is no further necessity of keeping the Applicant in custody
for the purpose of investigation. The trial is at the nascent stage and would
take long to get concluded.
26. Considering all the aforesaid factors, the Applicant/Accused is granted
Regular Bail, on the following terms and conditions:
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
a) The Petitioner/Accused shall furnish a personal bond of
Rs.35,000/- and one surety of the like amount, subject to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
b) The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Court as and
when the matter is taken up for hearing;
c) The Petitioner/Accused shall provide her mobile
number/changed mobile number to the IO concerned which shall
be kept in working condition at all times;
d) The Petitioner/Accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity
and shall not communicate or intimidate the witnesses.
e) In case the Petitioner/Accused changes her residential address,
the same shall be intimated to learned Trial Court and to the
concerned I.O.
27. The copy of this Order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent, as well as, to the learned Trial Court
28. The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 05, 2025/RS
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
[ad_2]
Source link