Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
Bail Application.
State vs. Ankit Budha
FIR no. 232/2024
PS Crime Branch
U/s 20/25/29 of NDPS Act
09.07.2025
This is the first bail application U/s 484 of BNSS
filed on behalf of applicant/accused Ankit Budha for grant of
regular bail.
Present: Sh. Kamal Akhtar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Ms. Sunita Sharma and Mr. Deepak Joshi, Ld.
Counsels for applicant/accused.
IO ASI Mukesh Kumar is present.
Reply to bail application is filed. Copy supplied.
Arguments heard.
Ld. Counsel for accused submits that the
applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in this case and the
accused has been arrested on the disclosure statement of accused
Prem Thapa from the Jurisdiction of PS Kasol. She further drawn
attention of this court on page no. 30 of the charge-sheet and
states that he disclosed to the police that he does not know how
to write, however, the notice issued to him U/s 50 of NDPS Act
bears his signature. She further submits that though the grounds
of arrest were allegedly provided by the police but as he is an
illiterate person and does not know the English language but as
per the grounds of arrest same were not explained to him in
vernacular, therefore, the police did not comply the said
conditions to supply grounds of arrest to the applicant/accused.
She further argued that co-accused Prem Thapa is admitted to
bail vide order dt. 17.07.2025. Nothing has been recovered from
the possession of applicant/accused and the police has failed to
connect the case property allegedly recovered during
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
investigation. She further argued that since nothing has been
recovered from the possessin of applicant/accused then Section
37 of NDPS cannot be applied on applicant/accused. Ld. Counsel
for applicant/accused has relied upon the judgments titled as Md.
Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 18 SCC
166 ; Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024) decided by
Supreme Court of India; Sh. Braham Singh Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi (Bail Appln. 2769/2023) decided by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.
Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and IO have
vehemently opposed the bail application stating that the
applicant/accused is the source of contraband i.e. Charas. There
were Whatspp chat between accused Prem Thapa and the present
applicant/accused. They further submit that there are photos and
videos of some other persons with Charas and the same were
recovered from the mobile phone of applicant/accused.
They further argued that even if the
applicant/accused does not know how to write then also the
person who cannot write can give his signature and so do the
applicant/accused had signed the arrest memo and the grounds of
arrest. They further argued that the grounds of arrest were
explained to applicant/accused and he was having knowledge of
the same. They further submit that during investigation of the
case total 17.526 Kg. Charas has been recovered and this is a
commercial quantity.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
At the outset, it is observed that the judgment Md.
Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 18 SCC
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
166 relied upon by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the bail
application was U/s 436A Cr.PC and the applicant/accused was
in JC in that case for several years.
As per the case of prosecution, the applicant/accused
was arrested on the disclosure statement of accused Prem Thapa
from Kasol Himachal Pradesh, he was the source of Prem Thapa
and there is Whatsapp connectivity between applicant/accused
and accused Prem Thapa. It is the further case of prosecution that
during the analysis of mobile phone of applicant/accused,
photographs of charas and video of weighing charas on electrical
weighing machine have been recovered. The judgment relied
upon by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused i.e. Sh. Braham
Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Bail Appln. 2769/2023)
decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is not applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the case. There was only call details
between applicant/accused and co-accused persons but there are
photographs and videos in respect of contraband.
Further as per record, the grounds of arrest were
duly served upon the applicant/accused and the grounds of arrest
bears his signature. The fact that the applicant/accused cannot
write is a matter of trial as the judicial notice of the fact can be
taken that there are several persons who cannot read and write
but they can sign. Further the prosecution has categorically stated
that the grounds of arrest were duly explained to the
applicant/accused therefore this gound is also rejected and
judgment Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024) decided
by Supreme Court of India is also not applicable.
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
As per the facts of the case, the prosecution has
prima facie evidence on record that there are connectivity
between applicant/accused and the co-accused and
applicant/accused was the source of Prem Thapa. The accused
Prem Thapa was admitted to bail on the technical ground that the
alleged grounds of arrest supplied to him were not bearing his
signature. He was not admitted to bail on the merits of the case
but on the technical grounds the applicant/accused and co-
accused Prem Thapa are not on the parity.
As per the facts of the case, 17.526 Kg. charas has
been recovered during investigation of this case. Hence, I do not
find any reason to admit to bail at this stage, therefore, the bail
application is dismissed.
The observations made on the merits of the case are
purely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application
and shall not be construed as expression upon the merits of the
case.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the IO, Ld.
Counsel for applicant/ accused and be communicated to the
applicant/ accused in Jail through Jail Superintendent concerned.
(Virender Singh)
Special Judge, NDPS-02,
Central,THC, Delhi/09.07.2025
-- 4 of 4 --