Delhi High Court
Ses Ram vs State Of Nct Delhi on 25 July, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 25th July, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025
SES RAM
S/o- Shri. Mahinder Singh,
R/o-Vill Dhara, PO. Dhara,
Tehsil-Bhuntar, Shat (38/98),
District-Kullu, Himachal Pradesh .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, Mr. Vivek
Kumar Singh, Ms. Rupali Panwar and
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI
through concerned IO,
P.S. Crime Branch-Central District .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
ASI Sachin Singh, ARSC/Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. First Bail Application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023
(earlier Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) on behalf of the
Accused/Applicant seeking Bail in SC No. 430/2023 pending adjudication
before Special Judge NDPS, Tis Hazari arising out of FIR No. 30/2023
under Sections 20/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act‘), dated 10.02.2023 registered at PS Crime
Branch.
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is that on 09.02.2023 a
secret informer came to the office of the Complainant/ Insp. Robin Tyagi,
and informed him that one Ses Ram/Applicant is involved in supplying
‘Charas’ in Delhi and other States and is likely travel to Mumbai on that day
by Train Number 11058 from Subzi Mandi Railway Station with ‘Charas’.
He would be seated in Coach Number A-1, Seat Number 41, , which was
scheduled to reach Subzi Mandi Railway Station at around 8:00 PM. If
surveillance is maintained near Coach A-1 at Subzi Mandi Railway Station,
he can be apprehended with the contraband.
3. At 6:15 PM, the information was presented to Inspector Mangesh
Tyagi who informed ACP/ARSC Sh. Arvind Kumar, who then directed that
a raiding party be formed and deployed for surveillance around the coach.
Around 8:13 PM, the train arrived and they entered Coach A-1. The
Applicant was found sitting on Seat No. 41 and he was apprehended and
brought to the Platform.
4. Upon interrogation, he disclosed his name and address as Ses Ram,
s/o Mahinder Singh, r/o Village & PO Dhara, Tehsil Bhuntar, Himachal
Pradesh, age 30 years. Applicant/Ses Ram was served with the Notice under
Section 50 NDPS Act. He declined to get searched by the Gazetted Officer.
5. Thereafter, his personal search was conducted and also the backpack
bag which was blue and grey, with straps, zipper closure, and labeled
“Quechua” on top and “Capacity 55 Ltr” in silver at the bottom. Inside the
bag, amongst clothes, a parcel was found wrapped in white transparent tape
made from a sack. Inside was a cardboard box wrapped in the same tape
labelled “Power Cell LED Torch” and handwritten with “DINU Mama.”
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39
6. On opening, a black, foul-smelling substance wrapped in transparent
polythene was recovered, which tested positive for „Charas’ and weighed
1160 grams (excluding packing). It was repacked as originally found, placed
in a white cloth, tied with a cloth strip, and marked as Parcel A. The bag was
then separately packed in a white plastic sack, tied, marked as Parcel B, and
sealed with the same official seal.
7. Thereafter, he was taken to the Office and his body search was
conducted before ACP Shri Arvind Kumar but no narcotic substance was
recovered. FIR under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, was registered.
8. The Applicant has sought Bail on the grounds that though the charges
have been framed, the prosecution seeks to examine a total of 22 witnesses
to prove the allegations against the accused persons. However, till now only
one witness has been examined till date and two are in the process of being
examined
9. The co-accused namely Mayur Khade has been enlarged on bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground of prolonged incarceration.
10. On merits, it is submitted that there is no material on record to show
that the raiding Investigating Officer (IO) was duly authorized to conduct
the raid in question. The mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS
Act which require prior authorization and recording of information, have not
been complied with, thereby vitiating the alleged recovery and rendering the
prosecution case doubtful.
11. Further, the alleged recovery is shrouded in doubt; as per the
prosecution‟s own case, the recovery from the applicant was affected at
Platform No. 1 of Sabzi Mandi Railway Station. However, the Investigating
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39
Officer failed to obtain any CCTV footage from the said platform, which is
a public place and likely to be under surveillance. Moreover, no video
recording of the recovery proceedings was made by the raiding team, which
casts serious doubt on the genuineness and credibility of the alleged
recovery.
12. It is submitted that the Ld. Session Court has erred in giving the
observation that videography was not a mandate at that time. But after the
implementation of BNSS since 01.07.2024, videography has become
mandatory.
13. Furthermore, it is submitted that the alleged recovery took place at a
crowded public place, i.e., Sabzi Mandi Railway Station, where it would
have been reasonably easy for the prosecution to secure independent
witnesses. Despite the constant presence of government personnel such as
para-military forces, local police, CRPF and ticket checking staff, not a
single independent public witness has been associated or cited in the present
case, which creates a serious doubt over the fairness and transparency of the
recovery proceedings.
14. The Applicant is a permanent resident of Vill. Dhara, Tehsil –
Bhuntar, shat (38/98), District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and is residing with
his family. There can be no apprehension that the Applicant will abscond.
The Applicant undertakes to be present before the IO whenever his presence
is required, and further that he will not influence witnesses or tamper with
the evidence.
15. It is thus, prayed that Bail may be granted.
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39
16. Reliance is placed on Bharat Chaudhary vs Union of India, in SLP
(Crl.) 5703/2021 & 8919/2021 decided on 13.12.2021, Biswajit Mondal @
Biswajit Mandal vs. The State of West Bengal, in SLP (Crl.) 11731/2022
decided on 14.02.2023, Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, in SLP (Crl.) No.
11616/2019 decided on 01.02.2021, S.C. Legal Aid Committee Representrial
Undertrial Prisoners vs Union of India, 1994 SCC (6) 731, Mohd. Muslim
@ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl.) 915/2023 decided on
28.03.2023, Govinda vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. 1090/2024
decided on 23.09.2024, Badri Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl.
3533/2023 decided on 06.12.2023, Gurpreet Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi,
Bail Appl. 857/2023 decided on 05.02.2024
17. The State in its Status Report has stated about the facts of this case
and the recovery of Charas from the Applicant.
18. It is further stated that during the investigation, bank statements of
accused persons were collected, which show that accused Mayur Khade
transferred approx. Rs. 47,000/- from his Bank account to the Bank account
of Applicant Ses Ram. Co-Accused Mayur Khade also transferred Rs.
2,57,999/- in the bank account of Applicant through Kripa Enterprises,
Money Transfer Service. The Statement u/s 161 CrPC of , Sh. Kripa
Shankar Chaurasiya, owner of above said Kripa Enterprises, Money
Transfer Service has also been recorded, in this regard.
19. Further, it was also found that accused Mayur Khade got the Railway
ticket booked for Applicant to travel from Ambala to Mumbai on dt.
09.02.2023 through Shri Amit Kumar whose Statement u/s 161 CrPC, has
been recorded. The ticket was upgraded to Seat No. A1/41.
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39
20. During the course of investigation, Call Details of Applicant and co-
accused Mayur Khade were obtained which revealed that they were actively
in touch with each other.
21. Samples were deposited at FSL Rohini for chemical analysis. Report
has been received that the recovered substance was found to be ‘Charas’.
22. Charge-sheet of the case has been filed in the Trial court. Charges
against accused persons have been framed and case is at the stage of
Prosecution Evidence.
23. It is submitted that 1160 gm Charas i.e. commercial quantity of
contraband, has been recovered and the nature or gravity of offence is one of
the most important factor. Moreover, rigours of section 37 of NDPS Act are
applicable and the twin conditions stipulated are not satisfied in the present
case & therefore, the accused is not entitled to be released on Bail.
24. It is therefore, submitted that keeping in view of the aforesaid facts,
circumstances and gravity of the offence, the bail application is strongly
opposed and it may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice and being
devoid of merits.
Submissions heard and record perused.
25. The case of the Prosecution in crux, is that the Applicant was
apprehended from a Train at the Delhi‟s Sabzi Mandi Railway Station and
he was found to be in possession of Charas, weighing upto 1160 gms. The
Prosecution has alleged that the accused was carrying the contraband to
supply the same to the co-accused in Mumbai.
26. Admittedly, the Applicant has been in judicial custody from
23.11.2022. The Chargesheet has already been filed but only one witness,
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39
out of 22 Prosecution witnesses, has been examined. The Trial is ongoing
and is going to take long to conclude.
27. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,
(2021) 3 SCC 713 observed that if the timely trial is not possible, Courts
should ordinarily release the undertrials on bail and statutory restrictions do
not exclude discretion of the constitutional Courts to grant bail on the
ground of fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The
Personal Liberty guaranteed by Part IV in the Constitution, would cover not
only the protective but also bring within its ambit not only due procedure
and fairness but also access to speedy trial.
28. The Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid
Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) vs. Union of India, (1994) 6
SCC 731 had observed that undertrials cannot be indefinitely detained
pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his
acts unless the same has been established before a neutral arbiter. However,
owing to the practicalities of real life were to secure an effective trial and to
ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large
pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual
ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that timely trial
would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a
significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to
enlarge them on bail.
29. From the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgments, it emerges that the rigors of S.37 NDPS Act has
to yield to the constitutional rights of the Applicant. As observed by the
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39
Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 915/2023, the public interest may require stringent Bail
conditions but if the Trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked
on the individual is immeasurable.
30. Considering that the Applicant is in Judicial Custody for about 30
months and the trial is likely to take long, Applicant is granted Regular Bail,
on the following terms and conditions:
a) The Applicant/Accused shall furnish a personal bond of
Rs50,000/- each and one surety of the like amount each, subject to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
b) The Applicant/Accused shall appear before the Court as and
when the matter is taken up for hearing;
c) The Applicant/Accused shall provide their mobile
number/changed mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be
kept in working condition at all times;
d) The Applicant/Accused shall not indulge in any criminal
activity and shall not communicate or intimidate the witnesses.
e) In case the Applicant/Accused change their residential
addresses, the same shall be intimated to learned Trial Court and to
the concerned I.O.
31. The copy be sent to the Ld. Trial Court and the Jail Superintendent for
information and compliance.
32. The Bail Application along with pending Application(s), if any, is
disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 25, 2025/N
BAIL APPLN. 2019/2025 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2025
13:05:39