[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Vinay Dua vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.06.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 900/2025
VINAY DUA .....Applicant
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 & CRL.M.A. 7469/2025
RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL .....Applicant
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants : Mr. Aditya Aggarwal & Ms. Shivani
Sharma, Advs. for Applicant inBAIL
APPLN. 900/2025.
Mr. Vimal Kumar & Mr. Abhinav Rai, Advs.
for Applicant in BAIL APPLN. 982/2025.
For the Respondents :Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State with
SI Sukhraj Singh, ANTF/ Crime Branch.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present applications are filed seeking regular bail in FIR
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 1 of 13
18:55:14
No. 243/2024 dated 28.11.2024 registered at Police Station Crime
Branch for offences under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act‘).
2. Briefly stated, it is alleged that on 28.11.2024, on the basis of a
secret information, a trap was laid by the police team near Radhe
Krishna Chowk, 5thPusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. It is alleged that at about
10:15 AM, at the instance of the secret informer, three accused
persons – Laxman, Ankit Shukla, and Pankaj were identified to be
involved in the supply of contraband. Out of the three accused
persons, accused Laxman and Pankaj were apprehended by the police,
however, accused Ankit Shukla fled the spot. It is alleged that a brown
colour cardboard box containing 176 boxes of Alprazolam tablets
manufactured by the company “Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt Ltd.”
where each box contained 1760 strips and each strip contained 60
tablets weighing 14.080 kg was recovered from the possession of
accused Laxman.
3. It is alleged that another brown coloured cardboard box
containing 187 boxes of Alprazolam tablets manufactured by the
company “Mancare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd” where each box contained
1870 strips and each strip contained 50 tablets weighing 13.090 kg
was recovered from the possession of the accused Pankaj. During the
course of the investigation, both the accused persons were arrested.
During interrogation, accused Pankaj and Laxman disclosed that they
worked for one Ankit Shukla who had a godown/medical shop in Sant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 2 of 13
18:55:14
Nagar, Ghaziabad where accusedAnkit Shukla stored illegal drugs. It
is alleged that at the instance of accused Pankaj and Laxman, a
recovery of 18000 Alprazolam tablets was effected from the medical
shop of accused Ankit Shukla. During the course of investigation,
accused Ankit Shukla was arrested on 17.12.2024. During
interrogation, accused Ankit Shukla revealed that the recovered boxes
of Alprazolam tablets manufactured by Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt
Ltd. were procured by him from one Tanishq and the Alprazolam
tablets manufactured by the company “Mancare Laboratories Pvt.
Ltd” were procured by him from one Sonu. Accused Tanishq was
thereafter arrested on 28.12.2024.
4. During the course of interrogation, accused Tanishq disclosed
that on 24.11.2024, accused Ankit Shukla had ordered a large
consignment of Alprazolam tablets from him. He disclosed that he
subsequently ordered the supply from the applicant Vinay Dua who
delivered the consignment to his residence on 26.11.2024 through a
person namely Naresh who worked in an online porter company. A
further raid conducted at the residence of accused Tanishq led to the
recovery of 3,000 Alprazolam tablets and a mobile phone belonging to
accused Ankit Shukla was also recovered. Subsequently, at the
instance of accused Tanishq, the applicant Vinay Dua was arrested on
01.01.2025.
5. During the course of interrogation, the applicant Vinay Dua
disclosed that he delivered 200 boxes of Alprazolam tablets to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 3 of 13
18:55:14
residence of accused Tanishq upon the latter’s demand. He further
disclosed that the delivery was facilitated by a person namely Naresh
who worked in an online porter company. Upon further interrogation,
the applicant – Vinay Dua revealed that he sourced the tablets from
one person namely Aditya Kumar Sharma. Accused Aditya Kumar
Sharma was thereafter arrested on 04.01.2025. During the course of
investigation, it was revealed that the applicant Vinay Dua in addition
to using his own bank account used the bank account of his worker
Mohd. Azeem to conduct financial transactions. It is alleged that the
applicant Vinay Dua used the account of Mohd. Azeem to make
payments and receive funds from accused – Tanshiq and Aditya
Kumar Sharma. The analysis of the mobile phone of the
applicantVinay Dua further revealed that he shared the location of
accused Tanishq’s residence and mobile number with the delivery boy
Naresh prior to the date of delivery thereby facilitating the delivery of
consignment of recovered Alprazolam tablets.
6. During interrogation, accused Aditya Kumar Sharma disclosed
that he sourced the tablets from the applicant Raj Kumar Aggarwal.
The applicant Raj Kumar Aggarwal was thereafter arrested on
07.01.2025. During the course of interrogation, applicant Raj Kumar
Aggarwal disclosed that he knew accusedAditya Kumar Sharma
through a WhatsApp group. He disclosed that he sourced the tablets
from one Amit Kumar Aggarwal. It is alleged that the during the
course of investigation, WhatsApp chats between theapplicant Raj
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 4 of 13
18:55:14
Kumar Aggarwal and accused Amit Kumar Aggarwal was found
thereby revealing discussions related to various NRX-listed drugs
including Alprazolam tablets.
7. The learned counsels for the applicants submitted that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They
submitted that the applicants were arrested solely on the basis of a
disclosure statement of the co-accused persons, and that the same
cannot be used against the applicants in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil
Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 1.
8. They submitted that the CDR connectivity and financial
transactions between the applicants and co-accused persons pertains to
fair transactions and have no relation to the commission of the alleged
offences.
9. They submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed in
the present case and that there is no need to subject the applicants to
further incarceration. They submitted that no recovery has been
effectuated from the applicants in the present case. They submitted
that the applicants have clean antecedents.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the applicants. She
submitted that the recovery in the present case related to commercial
quantity of drugs thereby attracting the bar under Section 37 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 5 of 13
18:55:14
NDPS Act. She submitted that there exists several financial
transactions between the applicantVinay Dua and accused Tanishq and
Aditya Kumar Sharma. She submitted that the call records of the
applicant – Vinay Dua revealed that he was in close and continuous
communication with accused Tanishq and Aditya Kumar Sharma
thereby reflecting his involvement in the present case.
11. She submitted that certainfinancial transactions between the
applicant Raj Kumar Aggarwal and accused Aditya Kumar Sharma
also exist thereby pointing towards his involvement in the present
case. She submitted that the analysis of the call record of the applicant
Raj Kumar Aggarwal revealed that he was in constant communication
with the other co-accused persons. She submitted that there exist
certain WhatsApp chats between the applicant Raj Kumar Aggarwal
and accused Amit Kumar Aggarwal which relate to discussions related
to various NRX-listed drugs including Alprazolam tablets.
ANALYSIS
12. 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 6 of 13
18:55:14
on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened;
etc. At the same time, the period of incarceration is also a relevant
factor that is to be considered.
13. It is unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the
accused charged with offence under the NDPS Act must fulfil the
conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37 of the
NDPS Act reads as under:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.–(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)–
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences
under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and
also for offences involving commercial quantity shall
be released on bail or on his own bond unless–
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the
time being in force, on granting of bail.”
14. It is argued that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial
quantity of contraband.
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Union of India v. Shiv
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 7 of 13
18:55:14
Shanker Kesari :(2007) 7 SCC 798, has observed as under:
“11. The court while considering the application for bail with
reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a
finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially
confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the
court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction
about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to
consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal
and recording a finding of not guilty.
12. Additionally, the court has to record a finding that while on
bail the accused is not likely to commit any offence and there
should also exist some materials to come to such a conclusion.”
16. Once the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, as
provided under the Section, the Court can grant bail only when the
twin conditions stipulated in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are
satisfied in addition to the usual requirements for the grant of bail- (1)
The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the person is not guilty of such offence; and (2) That the
person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
17. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Phundreimayum Yas
Khan v. State (GNCT of Delhi) : 2023 SCC OnLine Del 135, has
held that when there is no material to link the applicant with the
recovery of the commercial quantity from the co-accused persons, the
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply. It was further
held that the disclosure statement of co-accused is per se not
admissible without there being any corroboration.
18. It is the case of the prosecution that the name of the applicant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 8 of 13
18:55:14
Vinay was disclosed by accused Tanishq, who stated in his disclosure
statement that he had procured the contraband from the said applicant.
Subsequently, in his disclosure statement, the applicant Vinay
disclosed that he had sourced the contraband for delivery from the
accused Aditya Kumar. Thereafter, the name of the applicant Raj
Kumar emerged in the disclosure of accused Aditya Kumar, who
named the applicant Raj Kumar to be the supplier of the contraband.
19. It is pertinent to note that the allegations against the applicants
is essentially based on disclosure statement of the co-accused persons.
As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil
Nadu :(2021) 4 SCC 1, disclosure statements made under Section 67
of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence unless corroborated by
independent material. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment
are set out below:-
“155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional
statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or
Section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS
Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with Section 25 of
the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct
infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles
14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
156. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal then goes on to follow Raj
Kumar Karwal in paras 44 and 45. For the reasons stated by us
hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly,
and are thus overrules by us. Other judgments that expressly refer
to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down
by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by
us.
157. On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this
judgment, the judgments or Noor Aga and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan
v. Inspector, Customs are correct in law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 9 of 13
18:55:14
158. We answer the reference by stating:
158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under
Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the
meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which
any confessional statement made to them would be barred under
the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be
taken into account in order to convict an accused under the
NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an
offence under the NDPS Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the
applicants will be tested during the course of the trial, however, at this
stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the
applicants.
21. It is argued that there are certain financial transactions and CDR
connectivity between the applicants and co-accused persons. It is also
argued that there are certain WhatsApp chats between the applicants
and co-accused persons.
22. Merely because the applicants were in regular touch with the
co-accused, the same is not sufficient to establish the offence against
the applicants. A coordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Dalip
Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6494, had
observed as under:
“11. On perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that there are
two major missing links in the case of the prosecution. There is no
link established by the prosecution between the petitioner with the
alleged supplier Manoj. Further the entire case of the
prosecution, in so far as petitioner is concerned is circumstantialSignature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 10 of 13
18:55:14
i.e. based solely on disclosure statement of a co-accused which
is per se not admissible without there being any corroboration.
Prosecution has not been able to establish any connection between
the subject offence and the bank accounts, where the petitioner is
alleged to have been depositing money or with the holders of those
accounts. Merely because the petitioner has been having
telephonic conversation with the co-accused, would not be
sufficient to hold that petitioner is guilty of the subject offence.
There is no recovery made from the petitioner.
12. I am of the view that requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act are satisfied. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, there are
reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the
said offence.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Insofar as the money transactions are concerned, it is contested
by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are
pharmacists with valid licenses and the transactions and CDR pertain
to fair dealings.
24. Whether the financial transactions between the applicants and
accused persons and the WhatsApp chats were in regard to the
contraband, can only be ascertained after the entire evidence is led.
25. This Court does not deem it apposite to comment extensively on
the merits of the case when the charges are yet to be framed, however,
in the absence of any substantial corroboration lending credence to the
disclosure statements, the applicants have been able to establish a
prima facie case for grant of bail. It is undisputed that the applicants
have clean antecedents. In view of the above, this Court is of the
opinion that the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not
come in the way of granting bail to the applicants.
26. It is also relevant to note that the chargesheet has already been
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 11 of 13
18:55:14
filed in the present case. Although the applicants were only arrested in
January, 2025, however, it is pertinent to note that the matter is still at
the stage of arguments on charge. In such circumstances, the trial is
likely going to take long to conclude.
27. 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.
28. Even otherwise, any apprehension that the applicants will
indulge in similar offences or evade trial can be taken care of by
putting appropriate conditions.
29. The applicants are, therefore, directed to be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹20,000/- with two sureties of
the like amount respectively, subject to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court, on the following conditions:
a. The applicants 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 applicants shall under no circumstance leave the
country without the permission of the learned Trial Court;
c. The applicants shall appear before the learned Trial Court as
and when directed;
d. The applicants shall provide the address where they would
be residing after their release and shall not change the
address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 12 of 13
18:55:14
e. The applicants shall, upon their release, give their mobile
number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep their
mobile phone switched on at all times.
30. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged
against the applicants, it would be open to the respondent to seek
redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
31. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are
for the purpose of deciding the present bail applications 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.
32. The bail applications are allowed in the aforementioned terms.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
33. A copy of the order be placed in both the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 11, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:11.06.2025 BAIL APPLN. 900/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 982/2025 Page 13 of 13
18:55:14
[ad_2]
Source link