Delhi High Court – Orders
Vicky vs State Nct Of Delhi on 29 July, 2025
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 & CRL.M.A. 2249/2025
VICKY .....Applicant
Through: Ms. Sunita Arora,
Advocate from DHCLSC.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP
for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 29.07.2025
1. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR
No. 792/2021 dated 01.07.2021 for offences under Sections
8(C)/21/22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act‘) registered at Police Station Mangolpuri.
2. It is alleged that on 01.07.2021, a secret information was
received regarding the illegal supply of injections and packets of
heroin by the applicant at Aam Aadmi Mohalla Clinic, Y- Block,
Mangolpuri, Delhi, who used to procure the same from one
person namely-Kamal and his brother Anand. Subsequently, a
raiding party was constituted, and thereafter a raid was conducted
at Y- Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
3. During the raid, the applicant, who was seen carrying a
brown and grey bag, was apprehended by the raiding team after
being identified by the secret informer. Upon the search of his
bag, 30 packets of Heroin (weighing about 12.30 gram) and 20
BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 29/07/2025 at 22:28:45
injections of Buprenorphine of 2ml each was allegedly recovered
from the applicant.
4. Subsequently, the bag carrying the contraband was seized,
sealed and taken into possession, and the applicant was arrested
on 02.07.2021.
5. The chargesheet has been filed and charges have been
framed against the applicant under Sections 21(b)/22(c) of the
NDPS Act in the year 2023.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She
submits that there are serious infirmities in the case of the
prosecution and no public witnesses have been cited.
7. She submits that the alleged recovery of contraband from
the applicant is intermediate quantity and therefore the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case.
8. She submits that the applicant has already undergone 4
years in custody and now only formal police witnesses are left to
be examined.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State vehemently opposes the grant of bail to the applicant.
She submits that the applicant is involved in many other cases
under the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
10. She submits that commercial quantity of contraband has
been recovered from the applicant in the present case and the
rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are thus attracted against
the applicant.
11. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the
application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind,
such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground
BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 29/07/2025 at 22:28:45
to believe that the accused has committed the offence;
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of
the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the
accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on
bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened;
etc. However, at the same time, the period of incarceration is also
a relevant factor that is to be considered.
12. It is unequivocally established that, grant of bail on
account of delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by the
embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Apex
Court, in the case of Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) :
2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 has observed as under:
“21….Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial,
cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given
the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to
offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar
Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of
the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that
laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail,
may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not
concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual
is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living
conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the
Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National
Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on
31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in
jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country20.
Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were
undertrials.
23. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at
risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High
Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State21 as “a radical
transformation” whereby the prisoner:
“loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses
personal possessions. He has no personal relationships.
BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 29/07/2025 at 22:28:45
Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status,
possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The
inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The
prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-
perception changes.”
24. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to
crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more
professional the crime, more honour is paid to the
criminal”22 (also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison
Community’ published in 194023). Incarceration has further
deleterious effects – where the accused belongs to the
weakest economic strata : immediate loss of livelihood, and
in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of
family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in
the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is
irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases,
where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up
and concluded speedily.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rabi Prakash v. State of
Odisha : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109, while granting bail to the
petitioner therein held as under :
“4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37
of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State
has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands
complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of
opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be
formed at this stage when he has already spent more than
three and a half years in custody. The prolonged
incarceration, generally militates against the most precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty
must override the statutory embargo created under Section
37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Badsha SK. v. The State of
West Bengal (order dated 13.09.2023 passed in Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) 9715/2023), granted bail to the petitioner wherein
who had been in custody for more than two years with the trial
yet to begin.
BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 29/07/2025 at 22:28:45
15. Similarly, in Man Mandal & Anr. v. The State of West
Bengal (order dated 14.09.2023 passed in Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) 8656/2023 decided on 14.09.2023), the petitioner
therein had been in custody for almost two years and the Hon’ble
Apex Court found that the trial is not likely to be completed in
the immediate near future. The petitioner was, therefore, released
on bail.
16. From the foregoing, it is evident that despite the stringent
requirements imposed on the accused under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act for the grant of bail, it has been established that these
requirements do not preclude the grant of bail on the grounds of
undue delay in the completion of the trial. Various courts have
recognized that prolonged incarceration undermines the right to
life, liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, and therefore, conditional liberty must take precedents
over the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
17. In so far as the argument that the applicant is involved in
more cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar
Tiwari v. State of U.P. : (2020) 11 SCC 648 has held that the
involvement of the accused in other cases cannot be the sole
ground for dismissal of the bail application. Moreover, perusal of
the Previous Conviction Report reveals that all the prior criminal
involvements of the applicant are in relation to the offences
under the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and not under the NDPS Act.
18. It is also not denied that the process of search and seizure
in the present case was carried out in the absence of any public
witnesses.
19. The learned counsel for the applicant disputes the recovery
made from the personal search of the applicant and further states
BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 29/07/2025 at 22:28:45
that the contraband was planted. There is no other evidence about
the recovery of contraband from the applicant except the Police
witnesses. Whether the contraband was planted on the applicant
would be tested during the trial.
20. On the basis of the secret information, through the
recovery was made from the applicant in a public place and in
broad day light, there is an absence of any public witness. This
Court in the case of Bantu v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi (supra)
has observed that while the testimony of police witness is
sufficient to secure conviction if the same inspires confidence
during the trial, however, lack of independent witnesses in
certain cases can cast a doubt as to the credibility of the
prosecution’s case.
21. The applicant is in custody since 02.07.2021 and has
already spent more than 4 years in judicial custody. At this stage,
the charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant is no
longer required for custodial interrogation, since the investigation
is already complete and there is no chance of the accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail. Moreover, the same
can also be taken care of by putting appropriate conditions.
22. The trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence and is not
likely to conclude in near future. In such circumstances, no
purpose will be served by keeping the applicant in further
incarceration.
23. The object of Jail is to secure the appearance of the
accused during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor
preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a
punishment. The applicant cannot be made to spend the entire
BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 29/07/2025 at 22:28:45
period of trial in custody specially when the trial is likely to take
considerable time.
24. The applicant is stated to be a young man, belonging to a
poor strata of society, prolonged incarceration may itself result in
the denial of his fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
25. No apprehension has been raised about the witnesses being
influenced or the evidence being tampered by the applicant. The
presence of the accused can be secured at the time of trial by
putting appropriate conditions.
26. Without commenting further on the merits of the case,
keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the
trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant
has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
27. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be
released on bail in in FIR No. 792/2021, on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of ₹10,000/- with two sureties of the like
amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty
Metropolitan Magistrate on the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall under no circumstances, leave the
boundaries of National Capital Region without informing
the concerned IO.
b. The applicant shall provide the address of where he would
be residing after his release and shall not change the
address without informing the concerned IO/SHO;
c. The applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile
number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep it at
switched on mode at all times;
d. The applicant shall appear before the concerned Court as
BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 29/07/2025 at 22:28:45
and when the matter is taken up for hearing;
e. The applicant shall not indulge in any act or omission that
is unlawful, illegal or that would prejudice the
proceedings;
f. The applicant shall not tamper with any of the evidences in
any way or contact any of the witnesses, while on bail.
28. The bail application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms
alongwith the pending application.
29. It is clarified that observations made in the present case are
only for the purpose of considering the bail application and
should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be
taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 29, 2025
BAIL APPLN. 317/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 29/07/2025 at 22:28:45