Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Regular Bail Application
FIR No. 98/25, State Vs. Rohit Kumar @ Boncha
PS Crime Branch, U/s 21/25/29 NDPS Act
30.10.2025
This is an application U/s 483 of BNSS, 2023
seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused.
Present: Sh. K.P. Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Sh. Tushar Upadhyaya and Mr. Furkan, Ld. counsels
for applicant/ accused.
IO SI Amit in person.
Reply to the bail application is filed. Copy supplied.
Arguments heard on the bail application of the
applicant/ accused.
Ld. counsels for the applicant/ accused submit that
the applicant/ accused is falsely implicated in this case. They
further argue that allegedly, police had secret information but
then also, police has not joined any public person while doing
alleged recovery. They further argue that though, police has
mentioned that they requested 4/5 public persons to join the
investigation but no notice was given to any of them by the
police therefore, they submit that there are doubts on the case of
prosecution.
They further argue that co-accused Amit has already
been admitted to bail and allegedly, 278.37 gram Heroin/ Smack
was recovered from his possession, which is commercial quantity
but since there were doubts in the case of prosecution, therefore,
he has been admitted to bail. They further argue that allegedly
only 200.32 gram Heroin/ Smack has been recovered from the
possession of the applicant/ accused, which is an intermediate
quantity.
They further argue that as per the case of
Contd/-…
-- 1 of 5 --
- 2 -
prosecution, applicant/ accused was apprehended at about 12:40
AM in night and his personal search was conducted only at 1:48
AM. They further argue that the police had ample time to join the
public person, but they have planted the case property upon the
applicant/ accused.
They further argue that co-accused namely Aakash,
who is stated to be at large was not in connection with the
applicant/ accused and as per the case of prosecution itself, the
said accused was in contact with co-accused Amit and he has
already been admitted to bail. They further argue that the
investigation is already complete and charge-sheet is already
filed. Applicant/ accused is in JC since 24.04.2025. He is not
involved in any other case, therefore, they request that the
applicant/ accused may be admitted to bail.
Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the state as well as IO
have vehemently opposed the bail application. They argue that
the applicant/ accused was apprehended after receiving secret
information at odd hours i.e. 12:40 AM in night. According to
them, public persons were not easily available at the spot and
then also, police tried its best to join the public persons during
the investigation but police could not force any public person to
join the investigation as they had left the place by giving
plausible explanations. They further argue that 200.32 gram
Heroin/ Smack was recovered from the possession of the
applicant/ accused. According to them, though, it is an
intermediate quantity but at the instance of the applicant/
accused, co-accused Amit was arrested and at the house of
accused Amit, further recovery of 278.37 Gram Heroin/ Smack
Contd/-…
-- 2 of 5 --
- 3 -
was made. They further submit that the ultimate source of
recovered substance i.e. co-accused Aakash is still at large. They
further submit that the investigation qua said accused is going on
and matter is at the stage of charge. Therefore, they request that
the bail application should be dismissed.
In rebuttal, Ld. counsels for applicant/ accused
submit that the police can very well give notice to public persons
if they did not join the investigation.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
As per the case of prosecution, on 23.04.2025, at
about 10:30 PM, secret information was received to the effect
that one person namely Rohit R/o Uttar Pradesh (i.e. the
applicant/ accused), who is involved in supplying of narcotic
substance would be delivering Heroin/ Smack to someone on the
intervening night of 23/24.04.2025 between 12:15 AM and 1:00
AM at Outer Ring Road leading towards from Karnal Bypass to
Wazirabad. Compliances under NDPS Act were made, raiding
party was constituted and applicant/ accused was apprehended.
Thereafter, notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was given to him and total
200.32 gram Heroin/ Smack was recovered from the possession
of applicant/ accused. Thereafter, during investigation, co-
accused Amit was arrested on the disclosure statement of
applicant/ accused and 278.37 gram Heroin/ Smack was
recovered at his instance.
Ld. counsels for applicant/ accused have contended
that the commercial quantity was recovered at the instance of co-
accused Amit, however,
inter alia intermediate quantity has been
allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant/
Contd/-…
-- 3 of 5 --
- 4 -
accused. Therefore, applicant/ accused is entitled to bail on the
ground of parity.
Co-accused Amit was granted bail by this Court
only. This Court has gone through the bail order of co-accused
Amit. On perusal of bail order, it is observed that there were
lacunas in the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act qua accused Amit.
Further, the applicant/ accused had not disclosed in his disclosure
statement that he also used to work for the wife of accused Amit.
However, notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was also given by the police
to the wife of co-accused Amit. Therefore, considering the
overall facts qua co-accused Amit, co-accused Amit was
admitted to bail. However, on perusal of the documents
pertaining to the applicant/ accused, no lacunae has been found in
the legal compliances including notice U/s 50 NDPS Act.
As per the case of prosecution, 200.32 gram Heroin/
Smack was recovered from the possession of the applicant/
accused and thereafter, at his instance, 278.37 gram Heroin/
Smack was recovered from the house of co-accused Amit. The
applicant/ accused had disclosed in his disclosure statement that
he can show the house of accused Amit and also can get
recovered Heroin from there. Thus,
prima facie, recovery from
the house of accused Amit was also made at the instance of the
applicant/ accused. Therefore, considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, it is clear that the allegations against
the applicant/ accused are serious in nature and his case is
distinguishable from the case of co-accused Amit. It is well
settled that the nature and gravity of accusation, severity of the
punishment, danger of the accused absconding, reasonable
Contd/-…
-- 4 of 5 --
- 5 -
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced,
prima facie case
against the accused, danger to the society etc. are factors which
have to be kept in mind while exercising powers for grant of bail.
In my considered opinion and owing to the given facts and
circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
applicant/ accused at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application
of the applicant/ accused Rohit Kumar @ Boncha stands
dismissed.
The observations made on the merits of the case are
purely for the purposes 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,
Central,THC, Delhi/30.10.2025
-- 5 of 5 --