Delhi High Court
Saneesh Soman vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 21 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 3rd July, 2025.
Pronounced on: 21st July, 2025.
+ BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4214/2025
SANEESH SOMAN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Soujhanya Shankaran, Mr.
Piyush Kumar, Ms. Anushka B. and
Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocates.
versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms.
Shelly Dixit, Mr. Sahil Khurana and
Ms. Iracy Sebastian, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. Through the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19732), read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 19853, the Petitioner seeks bail in NCB Case
No. VIII/24/DZU/2023. This case relates to offences under Sections 8(c),
20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A & 29 of the NDPS Act, which is currently pending
before the Special Judge (NDPS-12), Patiala House District Court, Delhi.
Factual Background
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 1 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
2.1 Acting on specific intelligence, the Narcotics Control Bureau4
apprehended one Gajender Singh, aged approximately 23-24 years, at the
DTDC Courier Office, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, while he was attempting to
book a parcel. Upon search of the said parcel, 15 LSD paper blots weighing
0.3 grams were recovered from his possession. Following this, a preliminary
inquiry was conducted, and based on Gajender’s instance, a further search at
his residence led to the recovery of an additional 650 LSD blots in his
presence.
2.2 In his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Gajender
confessed to his role in the attempted shipment and named one Shainu
Hatwar as the person under whose instructions he was acting. Shainu
Hatwar was subsequently arrested and, in her statement under Section 67,
she admitted to her involvement and explained the modus operandi of the
drug distribution network. She further disclosed the name and contact details
of Sarabjeet Singh, a resident of Jaipur, as being the supplier of the
psychotropic substances.
2.3 Acting on this information, an NCB team proceeded to Jaipur and
carried out a search of the premises belonging to Sarabjeet Singh. This
resulted in the seizure of 9,006 LSD blots, 2.232 kilograms of Ganja, and a
cash amount of ₹4,65,500/- from his residence. Sarabjeet Singh was arrested
and, in his statement under Section 67, not only admitted to his role in the
drug trafficking operation but also corroborated the version of co-accused
Shainu Hatwar. He further revealed the details of four separate
consignments, three of which containing 100 LSD blots, that had been
3
“NDPS Act”
4
“NCB”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 2 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
dispatched by him. These included India Post consignment no.
RR673997169PL and courier numbers W60822411, W60808434, and
W60803432. Of these, courier W60822411 was delivered in Noida to one
Manthan Raina; consignment RR673997169PL was sent to Pune; and
courier W60803432 was destined for Kottayam, Kerala.
2.4 Acting on the disclosures made, the NCB successfully intercepted the
consignments. One Manthan Raina, the named consignee of courier no.
W60822411, was apprehended from the address in Noida mentioned on the
parcel. Upon search and seizure, 84 LSD paper blots weighing
approximately 0.7 grams were recovered from his possession. As regards
consignment no. RR673997169PL of India Post, the same was traced to a
post office in Pune, where it remained undelivered. Upon seizure and
inspection, it was found to contain 5,006 LSD blots, collectively weighing
approximately 84 grams.
2.5 In relation to courier no. W60803432, which had been dispatched to
Kottayam, Kerala on 02nd June, 2023, a trap was laid by the NCB at the
DTDC courier office in Kottayam to identify and apprehend the person who
would arrive to collect the parcel. Mr. Nideesh Sankar, a DTDC employee
present at the location, was requested to act as an independent witness to the
search and seizure operation, and he agreed. Significantly, Mr. Sankar
informed the NCB that the intended recipient of the courier had been
persistently calling the office to inquire about the parcel’s status. Based on
this input, Mr. Sankar was instructed to contact the said number and request
the caller to visit the office to collect the parcel.
2.6 Pursuant to the trap laid by the NCB, the Applicant, Saneesh Soman,
arrived at the DTDC courier office in Kottayam to collect the said parcel. He
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 3 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
was apprehended at the spot, and in the presence of the independent witness,
Mr. Nideesh Sankar, the search and seizure proceedings were duly
conducted. Upon examination, the parcel in question was found to contain
100 LSD paper blots, collectively weighing approximately 3.5 grams. The
contraband was sealed and seized in accordance with law. On the same day,
the Applicant’s statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,
in which he purportedly admitted to his role in the offence and disclosed that
he was acting in concert with one Punan C.M. @ Robin. The Applicant is
also stated to have shown the investigating officers a WhatsApp image
relating to the seized parcel. He was, thereafter, formally arrested for
offences under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
2.7 The Applicant was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at
Kakkanad, who granted a three-day transit remand to enable his production
before the Special Judge (NDPS) at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, where
the complaint proceedings are pending. It is submitted that the chargesheet
has since been filed, trial has commenced, and charges have been framed
against the Applicant under Sections 22(c) read with 29 of the NDPS Act.
Submissions of the Applicant
3. Counsel for Petitioner raises the following grounds for seeking bail:
3.1 The entire prosecution against the Applicant rests on a tenuous
foundation, and no material has been brought on record which directly
implicates him in the commission of the alleged offence. The Applicant was
an unwitting participant, drawn into the proceedings without any substantive
evidence linking him to the narcotic substance in question.
3.2 The investigation pertaining to consignment under courier no.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 4 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
W60803432, which the Applicant is alleged to have collected, is marred by
serious procedural lapses and inconsistencies. According to the Applicant’s
statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on 02nd June, 2023,
he informed the officers that he had gone to collect the parcel at the request
of his neighbour, one Punan C.M. @ Robin, and that he had no knowledge
of its contents. The Applicant is neither the consignee on the parcel nor is
the phone number or address mentioned therein traceable to him. He also
specifically informed the officers that he had no acquaintance with either the
sender, Raman Singh, or the named recipient, Varghese Kuruvilla. Despite
these disclosures, no meaningful investigation was carried out to identify or
trace the actual recipient or sender of the parcel. Additionally, no steps were
taken to verify the role of Punan C.M. @ Robin, whose name was disclosed
at the first instance by the Applicant.
3.3 The prosecution’s case that the Applicant contacted the DTDC office
using his mobile phone prior to arriving to collect the parcel is factually
incorrect. The number cited by the NCB is, in fact, that of the DTDC
Kottayam office itself, and not attributable to the Applicant. There has been
no investigation to identify the individual who actually made the calls to
inquire about the courier, thus casting serious doubt on the veracity of the
NCB’s claim.
3.4 There are no calls, messages or any financial transactions which links
the Petitioner with the other co-accused who have been arrested. According
to the prosecution’s own version, the Applicant’s alleged role is confined
solely to collecting a parcel from the DTDC office in Kottayam. No
incriminating material has been recovered from his possession or premises.
Moreover, the investigating agency has neither conducted any search of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 5 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
Applicant’s residence nor examined his financial or digital footprint to
uncover any alleged connection with the broader drug distribution network.
The assertion that the Applicant admitted to his involvement, or that of his
friend Punan C.M. @ Robin, is wholly unsubstantiated and unsupported by
any material on record.
3.5 The foundational requirement of “conscious possession” under the
NDPS Act is absent in the present case. In the absence of conscious
possession, it is argued that the statutory presumption under Section 54 of
the NDPS Act is inapplicable. Reliance is placed on NCB v. Ali
Mohammad5 and Fabian Helmchen v. State of Goa6 to submit that mere
physical custody, without knowledge or dominion over the contraband,
cannot attract penal consequences under the Act.
3.6 The Petitioner has continuously maintained that he had no knowledge
of the parcel and was only collecting it for his neighbour – Punan C.M.
@Robin. In this regard, he even showed the NCB officials the WhatsApp
message sent to him by Punan @ Robin instructing him to go to collect the
parcel. However, even after giving the contact details of Punan C.M.
@Robin to the investigating officers and despite his mobile phone being
seized by them, no investigation conducted by the NCB either to trace Punan
@Robin or the actual intended recipient of the parcel. In this regard, the
NCB has argued before the Trial Court that since the mobile phone of the
Petitioner was password protected, no forensic examination could take place
on the same. However, despite the Petitioner subsequently providing his
password to the Investigating Officer, there has been no update on any
5
2009 SCC OnLine Del 334
6
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1536
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 6 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
further investigation being taken up by NCB on this aspect.
3.7 The alleged confessional statement of the Petitioner under Section 67
of the NDPS Act did not lead to any recovery and is thus, inadmissible as
evidence.
3.8 Moreover, there is a material discrepancy in the weight of the
contraband allegedly recovered from the Applicant. As per the application
under Section 52A filed by the NCB, the quantity of recovered contraband
was indicated as 3.5 grams, however, in the order dated 24th July, 2023
passed on the said application, the total weight of the seized contraband has
been noted by the Trial Court as 2.5 grams. This inconsistency casts serious
doubts on the reliability of the said recovery. Reliance is placed on
Sarvothaman Guhan v. Narcotics Control Bureau7 and Rajesh Jagdamba
Avasthi v. State of Goa8.
3.9 The Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, who has no prior criminal
antecedents. Unlike the other co-accused, he has never been associated with
any investigation regarding the sale and purchase of narcotic drugs through
the dark net/online apps. There is no material linking him to the other co-
accused or the larger drug smuggling syndicate unearthed by the NCB.
There are no financial transactions which show that the Petitioner purchased
any of the contraband which was seized from him. Therefore, the charge of
conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act is not made out against the
Petitioner.
3.10 The Petitioner has been languishing in prison, for more than 18
months and the trial is yet to commence. this prolonged incarceration
7
2023 SCC OnLine Del 5643
8
(2005) 9 SCC 773
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 7 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
infringes upon the Petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution and amounts to punitive detention. In light of the above
submissions, it is evident that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act for grant of bail are made out in the present case in favour of the
Petitioner.
Submissions of the Respondent – NCB
4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC for NCB strongly opposes
the present application on the following grounds:
4.1 The Petitioner’s plea of lack of “conscious possession” is untenable in
the facts of the case. The record demonstrates that the Applicant made
multiple telephonic enquiries with the DTDC courier office regarding the
parcel in question, and upon being contacted by the DTDC employee on the
same number, he promptly arrived at the office to collect it. No cogent or
credible explanation has been offered by the Applicant for this active pursuit
of the parcel, particularly if he was unaware of its contents. Reliance is
placed on the judgment in Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya
Pradesh9 wherein the Supreme Court clarified that conscious possession
does not only mean physical possession of the narcotic drug by a person but
also being aware of its presence and nature. In the present case it is
established that the Petitioner not only had the physical possession of the
contraband but that he also had knowledge that the same contained illicit
drugs.
4.2 The total quantity of the contraband recovered from the Applicant was
3.5 grams of LSD, which is above the prescribed commercial quantity9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 122Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 8 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
threshold of 0.1 gram, the stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are attracted. As such, the Applicant would have to discharge the burden of
satisfying this Court as to there being reasonable grounds to believe that he
is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
4.3 The Applicant was apprehended at the scene while attempting to take
delivery of the contraband-laden parcel, which, as per the material gathered
during investigation, had been dispatched by co-accused Sarabjeet. In this
backdrop, the statutory presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act
squarely applies, and the onus is on the Applicant to disprove the same. The
NCB maintains that the evidence collected thus far, including the nature of
the contraband, the statements under Section 67, and the coordinated
recoveries, point towards the Applicant’s involvement in a broader
conspiracy for trafficking in psychotropic substances.
4.4 The chargesheet has been filed and charges have been framed; the
trial is at an incipient stage. The apprehension of the Applicant absconding
or interfering with the evidence cannot be ruled out at this stage. Given the
seriousness of the offence and the nature of the allegations, no case for grant
of bail is made out.
Analysis
5. The Court has given due consideration to the submissions urged by
the parties. The contraband in question, i.e., 100 LSD blots weighing
approximately 3.5 grams, was recovered from a courier parcel which the
Applicant had come to collect from the DTDC office in Kottayam. Given
that the recovered quantity exceeds the prescribed threshold of 0.1 gram forSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 9 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
LSD, it qualifies as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, thereby
invoking the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, for
the grant of bail, the Applicant must satisfy the twin requirements under
Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, i.e., (i) the Court must be satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence, and (ii) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail.
6. On a comparative assessment, the allegations against the Applicant
are distinguishable from those levelled against the other co-accused. The
Applicant was apprehended while seeking delivery of a parcel which, as per
NCB’s intelligence input, contained psychotropic substances. The recovery
of contraband is thus linked to the parcel he came to collect. Nothing was
recovered from his person at the time of arrest, nor has the NCB conducted a
search of his residence or unearthed any other material which would suggest
involvement in the alleged drug trafficking network. In contrast, the other
co-accused were arrested pursuant to specific recoveries from their
residences or based on substantive links with multiple consignments. In this
light, the case of the present Applicant appears to rest on a relatively
narrower factual substratum.
7. The prosecution alleges that the Applicant was in conscious
possession of the contraband on the ground that he had made repeated calls
to the DTDC office to inquire about the parcel, and that he thereafter
appeared at the courier office to collect it. It is further asserted that the
Applicant was apprehended red-handed immediately after taking possession
of the parcel. However, a closer examination of the record reveals that the
phone number cited by the prosecution, ending in xxxxxx3290, allegedlySignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 10 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
used to contact the DTDC office, has been described in the
panchnama/seizure memo dated 01st June, 2023 itself as belonging to the
DTDC Kottayam office. This discrepancy was duly brought to the attention
of the Trial Court, which, on an application moved by the Applicant,
directed preservation of the Call Detail Records10 of both the Applicant’s
mobile number and that of the DTDC office. Moreover, the Applicant’s
mobile phone was seized at the time of arrest and yet there is no conclusive
determination by NCB as to whether the said calls were indeed made by the
Applicant. In light of this ambiguity, and the absence of any forensic
corroboration tying the Applicant to the number that initiated the calls, this
Court is of the view that the benefit of doubt must enure to the Applicant at
this stage.
8. Further, the Applicant was neither the consignee of the parcel nor was
the package addressed to his residence. The parcel was ostensibly dispatched
in the name of “Raman Singh” from Jaipur and addressed to one “Varghese
Kuruvilla” in Kottayam. However, as per the disclosure statement of co-
accused Sarabjeet, he himself was responsible for dispatching the parcel.
This suggests that a pseudonymous identity may have been employed for the
consignor. As regards the consignee, the Applicant has consistently stated
that he has no acquaintance with any person by the name of Varghese
Kuruvilla and that he had merely gone to collect the parcel on the
instructions of his neighbour, one Punan C.M. @Robin. It is further evident
that even the address mentioned on the parcel does not pertain to the
Applicant.
9. The Applicant emphasises that his involvement was limited to
10
“CDRs”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 11 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
collecting the parcel at the behest of his neighbour and that he had no
knowledge of its contents. It is his case that he showed the investigating
officials a WhatsApp message received from the said Punan C.M. @Robin,
which allegedly contained the parcel tracking details along with a request to
collect the same from the courier office. In furtherance of the investigation,
the Applicant voluntarily surrendered his mobile phone to the Investigating
Agency to facilitate forensic analysis and corroborate his version. When
informed that the device was password protected and the data could not be
accessed, he provided the password to enable forensic extraction. Despite
this level of cooperation, the NCB has neither undertaken any meaningful
inquiry into the identity of the said Punan C.M. @Robin nor filed any
supplementary chargesheet addressing the information supplied by the
Applicant.
10. Insofar as NCB’s reliance on the Applicant’s disclosure statement
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is relevant to note that no
recovery was effected pursuant to the said statement. Furthermore, there
appears to be no independent or contemporaneous evidence on record, such
as CDRs, text messages, financial transactions, or any other corroborative
material, linking the Applicant to the trafficking operation or demonstrating
his prior knowledge of the contents of the parcel. It is well-settled that a
confessional statement recorded under Section 67, in the absence of
substantive corroboration, does not carry probative value and cannot be the
sole basis for sustaining the accusation, particularly in light of constitutional
safeguards under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution11.
11. It is equally well settled that the concept of ‘conscious possession’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 12 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
under the NDPS Act necessitates both, knowledge of the contraband and the
ability to exercise control over it12. In Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan13,
the Supreme Court held that ‘conscious possession’ entails not only physical
custody of the contraband but also the presence of animus, i.e., knowledge
of and intention to exercise control or dominion over the substance.
Accordingly, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused had
personal knowledge of the existence of the contraband and had the intent to
maintain control over it.
12. The Applicant has consistently maintained that he had no knowledge
of the contents of the parcel and had collected the same solely at the request
of his neighbour, Punan C.M. @Robin, who had provided him the
consignment details via WhatsApp. While the true extent of his knowledge
and involvement will undoubtedly be subject to evidence at trial, at this
stage, the prosecution has not produced any direct or circumstantial material
to demonstrate that the Applicant knew or ought to have known about the
nature of the contents. Thus, the act of merely receiving a package, absent
any material to suggest that the Applicant was aware of its illicit contents,
prima facie, cannot by itself satisfy the legal threshold of “possession” under
the NDPS Act.
13. Taking a holistic view of the material presently available, the role
ascribed to the Applicant appears confined to the act of collecting the parcel,
with the prosecution primarily relying upon his alleged confessional
statement under Section 67. There are no incriminating call records,
financial transactions, or digital communications linking him to the co-
11
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1
12
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 122
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 13 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
accused or trafficking network. In the absence of such corroboration, and
given the settled position that confessions under Section 67 are insufficient
without supporting evidence, this Court is of the view that the benefit of
doubt ought to enure to the Applicant at this stage. Accordingly, for the
limited purpose of bail, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
Applicant is not guilty of the offence alleged. The first limb of Section
37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is therefore satisfied.
14. As regards the second requirement under Section 37(1)(b) of the
NDPS Act, it is pertinent to note that the Applicant does not have any prior
criminal antecedents. There is nothing on record to suggest that he poses a
flight risk or that he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. On the
contrary, the Applicant has cooperated with the investigation, including by
voluntarily handing over his mobile phone and subsequently providing the
password, as directed by the Trial Court. As per the Nominal Roll placed on
record, the Applicant has been in custody for a period of 2 years as of today,
and his conduct in jail has been noted to be satisfactory. In these
circumstances, this Court finds no material to conclude that the Applicant
would misuse the liberty of bail, if granted. Accordingly, the second limb of
the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act also stands
satisfied.
15. In light of the above, the Court is inclined to accept the Applicant’s
prayer for bail. Therefore, the Applicant directed to be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Metropolitan
Magistrate/Jail Superintendent, subject to the following conditions:
13
(2015) 6 SCC 222
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 14 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56
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 country without
the permission of the Trial Court;
c. The Applicant shall appear before the 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.
16. 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.
17. 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 or be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits
of the case.
18. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 21, 2025
as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 15 of 15
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:21.07.2025
19:12:56