Delhi High Court – Orders
State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi vs Dixit Uppal on 23 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 284/2025
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP.
SI Roopesh Balyan, P.S. Crime
Branch.
versus
DIXIT UPPAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Gyan R., Mr.
Deepak Ghai and Mr. Anubhav
Sindhu, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 23.07.2025
1. By impugned order dated 3rd October, 2024, passed by the Court of
Special Judge (NDPS)-01, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
in SC No. 107/2024 titled State v. Rahul Sharma & Ors., the Respondent
has been granted pre-arrest bail in connection with case FIR No. 289/2023
dated 16th December, 2023, registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851 at P.S. Crime
Branch, Delhi.
2. Aggrieved by the afore-noted order, the State has filed the instant
1
“NDPS Act”
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 1 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
petition under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232 (corresponding to Sections 439(2) and 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733) seeking cancellation of the bail
granted to the Respondent.
Factual Matrix
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
3.1. During the investigation in another case – FIR No. 273/2023,
registered against the Tillu Tajpuria Gang – it was revealed that the co-
accused Rahul Sharma and the Respondent, Dixit Uppal, had provided
financial support to the said gang. In the course of further inquiries, Rahul
Sharma’s mobile number was identified and found to be linked with several
bank accounts that reflected suspicious financial transactions.
3.2. Acting on this intelligence, a raid was conducted on 15 th December,
2023, at Rahul Sharma’s residence situated at Flat No. A2A/137, 3rd Floor,
DDA Flats, Janakpuri, Delhi. From a locked cupboard in his room, a dark
and light grey Rexine bag was recovered. Upon opening the bag, five
transparent polythene packets were found containing premium quality ganja,
weighing 1,111 grams (intermediate quantity as per the NDPS Act).
Consequently, the impugned FIR No. 289/2023 was registered.
3.3. On the following day i.e., on 16th December, 2023, Rahul Sharma’s
disclosure statement was recorded. He allegedly stated that consignments of
“OG Ganja” had been procured via the dark web from the United States.
One Lakshay Jain, who is presently in judicial custody in connection with
another case, is alleged to have coordinated the procurement and delivery of
2
“BNSS”
3
“CrPC”
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 2 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
the contraband to the present Respondent, who, in turn, would further supply
it to his customers.
3.4. The relevant portion of the disclosure statement of Rahul Sharma is
reproduced as follows:
3.5. On 16th December, 2023, another co-accused, namely Satya Prakash,
was arrested pursuant to the disclosure statement of Rahul Sharma. His own
disclosure statement was subsequently recorded, wherein he admitted to
being associated with Rahul Sharma in facilitating the operation of bank
accounts of various companies registered under the names “Surya
Enterprises” and “Surya Prakash” in different banks. These accounts wereCRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 3 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
allegedly used for transactions relating to the contraband business, in
exchange for commission. He categorically admitted to his role in
managing the financial operations of the drug syndicate and stated that:
3.6. During the period of his PC remand, Rahul Sharma led the police to
the residence of the Respondent. However, the Respondent was
absconding. Despite exhaustive efforts to trace him, he could not be
located. Thereafter, the State issued notices to the Respondent under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were not complied with, and he failed
to join the investigation.
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 4 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
3.7. In view of the above, the Respondent’s first application for
anticipatory bail was rejected by the Trial Court on 5 th February, 2024,
noting that the investigation was still in its initial phase and the Respondent
was avoiding the process of law. Thereafter, on 5th April, 2024, the
Respondent was declared a Proclaimed Offender4 by the Trial Court.
Despite this, the Respondent later filed a second pre-arrest bail application
on 19th September, 2024, which has been allowed by the impugned order,
which is now under challenge.
Contentions of the Petitioner
4. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State, submits that the Trial
Court erred in granting pre-arrest bail to the Respondent despite his alleged
involvement in a well-organised drug trafficking operation. He contends
that the Respondent’s links with the co-accused Rahul Sharma and Satya
Prakash, coupled with the recovery of 1,111 grams of “OG Ganja”, clearly
indicate his active participation in the illicit network. It is pointed out that
the Respondent had consistently evaded arrest and was ultimately declared
a PO. In such circumstances, the grant of bail runs contrary to the rigours of
the NDPS Act.
5. It is further contended that the Respondent’s evasion was deliberate.
Despite being served with notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, he
failed to appear or cooperate with the investigation. The State also relies on
the CDR analysis of the mobile number allegedly used by the Respondent,
which is said to reveal incriminating material, including suspicious chats,
photographs, and screenshots indicative of financial transactions linked to
the sale of certain narcotic substances. Moreover, the data extracted from
4
“PO”
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 5 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
the mobile phone of co-accused Rahul Sharma allegedly indicates that the
Respondent played a key role in coordinating and directing the operations
of the drug syndicate.
6. It is also submitted that the Trial Court overlooked the systemic
character of the narcotics operation under investigation. The modus
operandi allegedly involves procurement of drugs through the Dark Net,
circulation of funds via multiple bank accounts, and facilitation of high-
value transactions. In this context, the need for custodial interrogation
assumes significance, both to unearth the larger conspiracy and to trace the
proceeds of crime. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order
granting anticipatory bail be set aside.
Contentions of the Respondent
7. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Sharma, counsel for the Respondent,
submits that the impugned order is neither perverse nor unreasonable and
does not suffer from any inconsistencies. He contends that the impugned
order was passed after careful consideration of all relevant facts and
circumstances of the present case. The Trial Court, he submits, was fully
conscious of the fact that his earlier pre-arrest bail application had been
rejected; however, it took note of the subsequent change in circumstances,
which justified the grant of bail to the Respondent.
8. Mr. Sharma further submits that the Respondent has, at all stages,
demonstrated his willingness and bona fide intention to cooperate with the
ongoing investigation. In this regard, he submits that the Respondent had
repeatedly requested the prosecution to specify a date for his appearance
and participation in the investigation. In support of this submission, he
relies upon letters dated 19th December, 2024 and 3rd February, 2025,
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 6 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
addressed to the Assistant Commissioner Office, Crime Branch,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, as well as a letter dated 29 th March, 2025,
addressed to the SHO / IO at P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi. Despite these
requests, no specific date for joining the investigation has been
communicated to the Respondent to date, thereby weakening the allegation
that he is evading the process of law.
Analysis
9. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions and has perused
the record. Before delving into the merits of the rival contentions, it is
necessary to reiterate the well-settled principle that once bail has been
granted, it should not ordinarily be cancelled unless there are strong and
cogent reasons to suggest that the concession of bail has been misused or
that the accused has attempted to subvert the administration of justice. The
Supreme Court, in Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P.5, has held that bail, once
granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, and that
cancellation is justified only if there is evidence of misconduct by the
accused or if new circumstances emerge that warrant such a course.
10. At the same time, it is equally well-established that the order granting
bail must reflect due application of mind to the material on record and the
nature and gravity of the accusations. In Vipan Kumar v. State of Punjab6,
the Supreme Court observed that bail may be revoked where the order
suffers from manifest arbitrariness, is founded on extraneous considerations,
or reflects non-application of mind.
11. In light of the above principles, it becomes essential to assess whether
5
(2022) 8 SCC 559.
6
2021 SCC OnLine SC 854.
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 7 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
the Trial Court’s reasoning for granting pre-arrest bail suffers from any legal
infirmity or perversity warranting interference. The relevant findings read:
“It is matter of record that the first anticipatory bail application
of the applicant was dismissed by a speaking order by this Court vide
order dt. 05.02.2024. On perusal of that order, it is seen that the
application was dismissed mentioning that the investigation was at
initial stage and applicant was evading the process of the Court. It is a
matter of record that thereafter, charge-sheet was filed on 13.02.2024
and matter is now at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence.
Thus, it is evident that much water has flown under the bridge and it has
been almost 8 months since the first anticipatory bail application of
applicant was dismissed. The case law filed by the prosecution has been
perused and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GR.
Ananda Babu case (Supra) appear to be directory in nature and not
mandatory. In that case, it has been observed in the Order that in the
status report submitted by the IO, it was clearly indicated that custodial
interrogation of the applicant was essential and that the investigation
was incomplete. The Apex Court appears to have had made the
observation for not entertaining successive anticipatory bail
applications, considering that the IO had clearly mentioned in that case
that custodial interrogation of the applicant was required and that
investigation was incomplete. However, in the present case, no such
requirement of custodial interrogation has been mentioned in the bail
reply filed by the IO and it is a matter of record that charge-sheet qua
other co-accused has already been filed. Also this Court cannot lose
sight of the fact that the said matter in G.R. Ananda case (Supra) was
for offences punishable u/s 302 IPC read with other sections of IPC
while the present matter is under NDPS Act. Thus, in the opinion of the
Court, the said Judgment is not directly applicable to the facts of the
present case, hence, distinguished. Further, the implication of the said
Judgment and other Judgments of various High Courts does not appear
to be that subsequent anticipatory bail applications cannot be heard,
rather it appears that the said applications may not be maintainable in
case there is no change in circumstances.7 In the present case, it is
obvious that there is a change in circumstance as charge-sheet in the
main matter has been filed and investigation is complete and all the
information/documents appear to be available with the IO which is
obvious from the bail reply. For the same reason, the submission of
the prosecution that the applicant should not be granted benefit of
anticipatory bail as he was evading process of the Court, does not hold
good. It is a fact that charge-sheet in the present matter has already7
Bhisham Siagh vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-13315-2024 decided on 09.04.2024 by Punjab and Haryana High Court.
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 8 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
been filed and all the evidence is already available with the IO and the
Prosecution. The Whatsapp chats and screenshots as mentioned by
the IO in the reply have been perused and in the opinion of the Court,
the same will need to be legally proved during the course of recording
of evidence.
As submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the
applicant was not in India when the FIR was registered and he was
declared Proclaimed Offender when he was out of India, it is obvious
that the process was not properly executed and it was not possible for
the applicant to join investigation at that stage. Considering the
submission, it is the opinion of the Court that merely because a person
was declared Proclaimed Offencer does not bar the Court from
hearing the anticipatory bail application. The Court cannot blindly
reject the anticipatory bail application without application of mind to
the facts and circumstances of that case. It is a matter of record that
the present matter is at the stage of PE and other co-accused namely,
Surya Prakash has already been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi vide order dt. 28.05.2024. The allegations against
the applicant as mentioned in the bail reply are based on the
disclosure statement of co-accused Rahul which are not admissible as
per the Judgment of Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2020 SCC
Online SC 882 and also Judgment cited by the Counsel for applicant
titled as Mohd Irshad (Supra). The screenshots of the chats and
messages are to be proved during recording of evidence. No other
grounds have been mentioned by the IO which would require arrest
and custodial interrogation of the accused in the present matter. It is
obvious to the Court that all the incriminating evidence, if any, is
already available with the IO. Just for the purpose of recording
statement of the accused, arrest should not be allowed. It is settled law
that interrogation of accused does not mean that the accused must make
a confectional statement. It is further settled law that participation in
investigation does not entail making a self incriminating statement and
is not sufficient ground for obtaining custody. Reliance is placed on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemant Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana, SLP (Crl.) No. 232/2024 decided on 06.03.2024. It is obvious
that rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are not applicable in case of the
applicant in the present case. There are no previous involvements of the
applicant. Further, all the information and documents already seem to
be available with the IO.” [SIC]
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. The Trial Court recorded that the invocation of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act was inapplicable in the Respondent’s case, as the recovered
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 9 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
contraband was not attributable to him. Further, the Trial Court’s rationale
for granting bail is premised on significant considerations, including the
fact that bail had already been granted to Surya Prakash by this Court – an
aspect that evidently weighed in the Court’s mind while assessing the parity
of the Respondent’s case. Notably, the Trial Court was aware of the
Respondent’s status as a proclaimed offender; however, it did not proceed
in a mechanical or perfunctory manner. Rather, upon careful deliberation
and evaluation of the material on record, the Court arrived at a reasoned
conclusion that custodial interrogation of the Respondent was not
warranted, particularly in view of the overall facts and circumstances.
13. The Trial Court’s reasoning reflects application of mind to the settled
principle of law that arrest is not a necessary adjunct to effective
investigation, and that the need for custodial interrogation must be
demonstrated through specific material, which in the present case, was
conspicuously absent. Furthermore, chargesheet has already been filed in
the case – albeit not against the Respondent – indicating substantial
progress in investigation. The Court also took note of the Respondent’s
claim, supported by documents, that he was out of the country when the
FIR was registered and had made attempts to join the investigation
thereafter, which, if correct, would cast doubt on the allegation that he
wilfully evaded process. In this light, a crucial aspect that cannot be
overlooked is that the impugned order granting bail was passed as far back
as 3rd October, 2024, and nearly nine months have since elapsed. During
this period, the prosecution has failed to call upon the Respondent to join
the investigation, despite having had sufficient opportunities to do so, for
reasons best known to them. For the foregoing reasons, the conclusions
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 10 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44
drawn by the Trial Court do not suffer from any manifest illegality,
perversity, or inconsistency and prima facie appear to be supported by the
record.
14. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds no merits in the present
petition.
15. It is clarified that the observations made above are only for the
purpose of deciding the State’s challenge to the bail order, and none of the
observations shall affect the merits of the case.
16. Dismissed along with pending applications.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 23, 2025
as/kk
CRL.M.C. 284/2025 Page 11 of 11
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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:44