Delhi High Court – Orders
Vanga Rajendra Goud vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 August, 2025
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2344/2025
VANGA RAJENDRA GOUD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Agarwal, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Mithun Shashank,
Mr. Shiv Nath Sawhney, Mr. Sidhant
Saraswat and Ms. Priti Verma,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State
with SI Neeraj Kumar Special Cell.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
ORDER
% 05.08.2025
1. This is the third foray of the applicant herein (but first before this
Court) seeking grant of bail in FIR no. 173/2024 for alleged offences under
sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (NDPS ACT) registered at police station Special Cell, Delhi.
Earlier he filed first bail application which was dismissed by the Ld. Special
Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts vide order dated 04.12.2024, where as
the second bail petition filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the Ld.
Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala house Courts, vide order dated 05.06.2025.
2. Prosecution case is that, acting on secret information, it intercepted a
suspicious parcel on 25.04.2024 at Shree Maruti Courier Company
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 05/08/2025 at 22:26:33
Warehouse, IGI Airport, Delhi. Upon opening the parcel in the presence of
courier staff, two silver-coloured packets marked as A and B were found,
each containing white powder suspected to be a psychotropic substance
(Tramadol or Alprazolam), weighing 1.002 kg and 1.000 kg respectively.
Total weight of the bundle was 2.002 kg.
2.1 In the course of investigation that ensued, co-accused Rachit and
Namit were arrested, and further recoveries of 1.712 kg of psychotropic
substance (Alprazolam) was allegedly made at their instance.
2.2. Based on custodial disclosure statement of the co-accused, when the
applicant herein allegedly came to inquire about the parcel booked by co-
accused Rachit at Pan Bazar, Secunderabad, Telangana, he was arrested
on 14.05.2024. No communication of grounds for arrest as mandated under
Section 52 of the NDPS Act was carried out.
2.3. The applicant is in custody since the day of his arrest i.e. 14.05.2024,
more than 15 months now.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop I have heard the rival contentions and
perused the case file.
4. Learned counsel argues that as per the prosecution, the Applicant who
has a tadi (local wine business), allegedly procured alprazolam powder from
co-accused Rachit Kumar and made payments to co-accused’s (Rachit)
mother’s accounts.
4.1. He would point out that no recovery was made at the instance of the
Applicant, even the parcel was not addressed to him, and the person who
booked it has not been traced.
4.2 Moreover, he urges that the Applicant’s arrest was made without
communicating grounds, in violation of Section 52 NDPS Act and Article
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 05/08/2025 at 22:26:33
22 of the Constitution. On this ground, even the co-accused Deepak
Chauhan was granted bail on 09.06.2025, and co-accused Naveen Aggarwal
was granted bail on 13.11.2024, both of whom have prior NDPS cases,
unlike the Applicant.
4.3. The learned Counsel states that the applicant is in judicial custody
since 14.05.2024 and has undergone more than 1 year and 2 months in
incarceration and the trial is moving at snail’s pace. Even though the
chargesheet was filed on 25.04.2024, the prosecution intends to examine 70
witnesses due to which trial will take considerable amount of time. Reliance
has been placed on Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1109 and Man Mandal and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1868 to argue that in case the custody of the accused is for a
prolonged period, conditional liberty overrides the statutory embargo.
5. Opposing the bail plea, learned APP would urge that given the role
attributed to the applicant, no interference by this Court is warranted. He
would submit if let out on bail during trial, the applicant may indulge in such
like repeat acts.
5.1. She also points out that the applicant had earlier bails petitions filed by
the applicant were validly dismissed by the Ld. Special Judge, NDPS,
Patiala house Courts.
5.2 Moreover, she further points out that the a quantity of 4.720 kg has
been recovered, which is a commercial quantity and attracts a minimum
sentence of 10 years along with bar on bail as enshrined in Section 37 of the
NDPS Act.
5.3 She further submits that a total of 5 parcels were delivered between
03.10.2023 and 12.03.2024 to Ms. G. Kavita, representative of the applicant,
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 05/08/2025 at 22:26:33
indicating that a interstate drug cartel was in operation. The learned APP
states applicant was in regular touch with the co-accused, Rachit Kumar and
used the bank accounts of his relatives to purchase Alprazolam.
6. Having heard as above, it transpires that no recovery was indeed made
from the conscious possession of tie petitioner.
7. As per the case of the prosecution and the charge-sheet, that apart it
appears that the name of the applicant triggered only during the investigation
on the basis of a custodial disclosure by the co-accused which per se is not
admissible, unless, of course, there is a cogent evidence corroborating the
same. As of now, there is no direct evidence against the petitioner other than
his being made suspect on the basis of his having direct contact with a co-
accused, namely, Rachit who is stated to be the mastermind and thus has
been termed as a prime accused.
8. It also transpires that similarly situated other co-accused persons
(Deepak Chauhan and Naveen Aggarwal) whose call details also reveal that
they were as much in touch with Rachit have been accorded the benefit of
bail and to that extent the applicant stands no differently.
9. On a Court query put to the learned APP for State, she would submit,
on instructions of the Investigating Officer, that there are no criminal
antecedents of the applicant and he has never been involved in any NDPS
matter in past.
10. The reasons which weighed on the mind of the learned Sessions Court
while granting bail to the Co-accused inter alia was on the account of the
non-disclosure of the grounds of arrest in terms of Section 52(1) of the
NDPS, which is also a constitutional mandate under Article 22. Even on that
ground applicant stands on parity as there is nothing on record produced by
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 05/08/2025 at 22:26:33
the prosecution to show that he was served with any grounds of arrest.
11. Qua the apprehension of tampering of the evidence, there is no such
likelihood as most of the material is documentary in nature and the
contraband has already been seized and the same are beyond the reach of the
applicant.
12. Taking wholesome view of the matter and given that the petitioner
who remained under incarceration already for more than 14 months, I am,
therefore, of the view that at this stage, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
13. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Applicant is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety of an equivalent
amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge/Duty Judge as the case
may be, subject to the imposition of other usual conditions by the learned
Trial Judge/Duty Judge.
14. Nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the
merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the trial of the case as the
same is only for the purpose of the disposing of the present bail application.
In case applicant is found involved in any repeat offence while on bail, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the
applicant in the present case vide instant order.
ARUN MONGA, J
AUGUST 5, 2025/SV/HD
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 05/08/2025 at 22:26:33