Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Pages No. 1/6
Regular Bail Application
STATE Vs. Naseeb, FIR NO. 08/25
PS Crime Branch, U/s 20/25/29 NDPS Act
17.02.2026
This is the second application U/s 483 of BNSS,
2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused
Naseeb.
Present: Sh. Prashant Choudhary, Ld. Subst. Addl. PP for
State.
Sh. Aditya Aggarwal and Sh. Naveen Panwar, Ld.
counsels for the applicant/ accused.
IO SI Amrendra in person.
Reply to the second bail application is already filed.
Copy already supplied.
At the outset, Ld. counsels for the applicant/ accused
submit that the previous bail application of the applicant/ accused
was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order
dated 10.10.2025. They further submit that the applicant/
accused has not taken any plea which was taken in the previous
bail application and therefore, present bail application is
maintainable.
Arguments heard.
Ld. counsels for the applicant/ accused submit that
allegedly, on 08.01.2025, the Investigating Agency received
secret information and after allegedly complying all formalities
U/s 42 of NDPS Act, raid was conducted. Thereafter, allegedly,
1428 gram Charas was recovered from the bag of the applicant/
accused.
They further submit that the said Charas has been
planted upon the applicant/ accused and he has been falsely
implicated in this case. They further argue that there is delay in
-- 1 of 6 --
Pages No. 2/6
sending the samples to FSL of about six days. They further
submit that as per the case of prosecution, the recovered
substance was sent to Ld. JMFC for proceedings U/s 52A of
NDPS Act but as per the copy of register of MHC(M) concerned
filed with the charge-sheet, there is no entry to the effect that the
said contraband was sent to the Court for aforesaid proceedings.
Therefore, there is delay in sending the samples to FSL.
They further argue that the Investigating Agency
was supposed to send the samples directly to FSL but since it
was sent after six days of taking samples, therefore, Investigating
Agency has not even complied the said provision also.
They further argue that the grounds of arrest were
not supplied to the applicant/ accused in his language. They
further submit that as per judgment of
Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 2195/25, decided
on 06.11.2025 as well as Article 22(1) of Constitution of India,
the Investigating Agency was supposed to provide grounds of
arrest in his own language but Investigating Agency has not
followed that provision. Therefore, according to them, arrest of
accused/ accused itself has become vitiated and he is entitled to
be released on bail.
They further argue that the applicant/ accused is in
JC since 09.01.2025. Investigation is already complete and
charge-sheet is already filed. According to them, it is settled law
that every day spent in JC by the accused is a new ground to
move the bail application. They further submit that the applicant/
accused is not involved in any other case.
In support of their submissions, they rely upon
Wajid Ali @ Tinku Vs. State of Rajasthan, Petition for Special
-- 2 of 6 --
Pages No. 3/6
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7049/25 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
Per contra, Ld. Subst. Addl. PP for the State as well
as IO have opposed the bail application of the applicant/ accused
stating that the previous bail application of the applicant/ accused
has been dismissed by this court and thereafter, applicant/
accused had moved the bail application before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated
10.10.2025. According to them, thereafter, there is no change of
circumstances, therefore, present bail application should be
dismissed.
They further argue that the grounds of arrest were
supplied to the applicant/ accused, which is already on record.
They further submit that there is no much delay in sending the
samples to FSL.
To this, Ld. counsels for the applicant/ accused
submit that the Investigating Agency has not explained any
reason for such delay. They further submit that no videography
or photography of the alleged recovery was done.
Ld. Subst. Addl. PP for state submit that the delay
has been duly explained. According to him, samples have to be
sent to the FSL through some Bar Code. He further submits that
the Bar Code could not be generated and therefore, time was
taken to send the samples to FSL. He further submits that the
judgments relied upon by the Ld. counsels for the applicant/
accused are not applicable. He relies upon
Surender Kumar Vs.
Central Bureau of Narcotics, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6839.
He further submits that the process of recovery of
contraband was duly videographed through e-Sakshya App,
-- 3 of 6 --
Pages No. 4/6
which was uploaded, as per rules. He further submits that since
the commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered,
therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act is applicable. Applicant/
accused has to satisfy the twin conditions as provided U/s 37 of
NDPS Act but according to him, applicant/ accused has failed to
satisfy the twin conditions. Therefore, he requests that the bail
application should be dismissed.
In rebuttal, Ld. counsels for the applicant/ accused
submit that the fact regarding non-generation of Bar Code is not
mentioned in the entire charge-sheet and at this stage, IO cannot
file supplementary charge-sheet to fill-up lacuna. They further
submit that the Investigating Agency has not provided any video
of the alleged videography allegedly prepared through e-Sakshya
app and therefore, said videography cannot be treated as
evidence.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
It is contended by the Ld. counsels for the applicant/
accused that the notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act was not given to the
accused/ applicant in his own language.
After going through the charge-sheet, it is found that
the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was served to the accused Naseeb
i.e. applicant/ accused in Hindi language. The said notice also
bears reply of the applicant/ accused. The reply of accused
Naseeb is also in Hindi language and it bears his signatures
below the notice as well as below the reply. Therefore, present
contention of Ld. counsels for the applicant/ accused is against
the facts of the case.
It is further contended by the Ld. counsels for the
applicant/ accused that there is delay of about six days in sending
-- 4 of 6 --
Pages No. 5/6
the samples to FSL. They also contended that the Investigating
Agency was supposed to send the samples directly to FSL from
the court.
It is observed that in
NCB Vs. Kashif, Crl. Appeal
No. 5544/2024, decided on 20.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has observed to the effect that any procedural
lacuna in doing proceedings U/s 52A of NDPS Act does not per
se entitle the accused to be admitted to bail. Therefore, the
present alleged lacuna falls under the ambit of aforesaid
judgment. Therefore, this contention is also rejected.
Ld. counsels for the applicant/ accused have also
contended that the Investigating Agency has not done
videography or photography of the alleged recovery. However,
as per the case of prosecution, the proceedings of recovery were
duly videographed through e-Sakshya App. Therefore, the
present contention is also against the facts of the case. Hence,
this contention is also rejected.
As per the facts of the case, commercial quantity of
Charas was recovered from the applicant/ accused, therefore,
Section 37 of NDPS Act is applicable. The applicant/ accused
has failed to satisfy twin condition as provided U/s 37 of NDPS
Act. It is well settled that the nature and gravity of accusation,
severity of the punishment, danger of the accused absconding,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, prime
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. The precedents
-- 5 of 6 --
Pages No. 6/6
relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant/ accused are
respectfully differentiated and are of, therefore, no help to him.
Accordingly, bail application of the applicant/ accused Naseeb
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 as well as
to the Ld. Counsel for applicant/ accused and be communicated
to the applicant/ accused through Jail Superintendent for
information.
(Virender Singh)
Special Judge, NDPS,
Central,THC, Delhi/17.02.2026
-- 6 of 6 --