Interim Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Pages No. 1/7
Bail Application (IA No. 10/2025 in SC no. 460/25)
FIR No. 114/25, State Vs. Manish Bhatle
PS Crime Branch, U/s 22/25/29 NDPS Act
26.11.2025
This is an application U/s 483 of BNSS, 2023
seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused Manish
Bhatle.
Present: Sh. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Ld. Special PP for
State(through VC).
Sh. Deepak Ghai, Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused.
ASI Rajender on behalf of IO SI Krishna in person.
Reply to the bail application is already filed. Copy
already supplied.
Arguments heard.
Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused submits that the
applicant/ accused has been falsely implicated in this case and
nothing has been recovered from the possession or at the instance
of the applicant/ accused. He further submits that the case
property is planted upon the applicant/ accused. He further
submits that though, allegedly, 2360 Tramadol Capsules and 120
bottles of Codeine Syrup were recovered from the possession of
the applicant/ accused but the Investigating Agency has nowhere
mentioned about the weight of the capsules. According to him,
offence in question is related to the weight of recovered
substance. He further submits that till date the prosecution/
Investigating Agency has not disclosed as to what was the weight
of the alleged recovered capsules.
He has drawn the attention of this Court on the
seizure memo of Tramadol Capsules and he has relied upon the
contents of the said seizure memo to substantiate that the weight
of the capsules allegedly recovered from the possession of the
-- 1 of 7 --
Pages No. 2/7
applicant/ accused is not mentioned in the seizure memo.
Thus, according to him, applicant/ accused does not
know till date as to for what offence he has been arrested and is
in custody.
He further argues that the Investigating Agency has
not verified two batches of the alleged recovered capsules from
the Manufacturing Company and according to him, Investigating
Agency has not verified that the recovered capsules were
spurious or were manufactured by the said Company or the batch
numbers were original or fake. He further submits that though,
allegedly, police had prepared photography and videography of
the alleged recovery but no such photo/ video has been provided
to the applicant/ accused till date. He further submits that as per
Section 105 of BNSS, 2023, the Investigating Agency is
supposed to produce the proof of photography and videography
before the Court and it has to be seen by the Court but the said
provision has not been followed by the IO. Thus, according to
him, investigation is faulty.
He further submits that as per Section 176 of BNSS,
2023, in cases, which are punishable for more than 07 years of
imprisonment, the Investigating Agency is supposed to call FSL
team at the spot but in the present case, Investigating Agency has
not called the FSL team at the spot and thus, according to him,
said provision is also not followed by the Investigating Agency.
He further argues that the place of incident is
Malkaganj, Delhi near Delhi University. According to him, all
the educated persons roam at the said place but then also,
Investigating Agency has not joined any independent witness
during alleged recovery or during further investigation.
-- 2 of 7 --
Pages No. 3/7
According to him, police has not joined any independent witness
during entire investigation.
Thus, according to him, alleged recovery itself is
doubtful. In support of his contentions, he relies upon judgment
Bantu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln. No. 2287/2022,
decided on 08.07.2024 & State of NCT of Delhi VS, Tauhid
Khan @ Shahid @ Lamba, Crl. I.P. 202/21, decided on
26.09.2025.
Ld. counsel for the applicant/ accused has further
argued that the Investigating Agency has not taken samples from
all boxes allegedly recovered from the possession of the
applicant/ accused. Thus, according to him, samples sent to FSL
do not represent correct sample of the recovered substance.
He further submits that the investigation is already
complete and charge-sheet is already filed. He further submits
that the applicant /accused is aged about 26 years and he is in JC
since 13.05.2025. He further submits that the applicant/ accused
is not involved in any other case. Therefore, he requests that the
applicant/ accused may be admitted to bail.
Per contra, Ld. Special PP for the state as well as IO
(by way of reply) have opposed the bail application.
Ld. Special PP for the state argues that the
commercial quantity was recovered during investigation in this
case. He further submits that the incident of recovery was
videographed as well as photographed. He further submits that
the secret information was in the name of the applicant/ accused
and thereafter, he was apprehended and arrested. According to
him, arrest of accused/ applicant is legal.
He further argues that any lacuna in the investigation
-- 3 of 7 --
Pages No. 4/7
does not entitle the applicant/ accused to be admitted to bail. He
further submits that the said lacuna may give benefit to the
applicant/ accused at the time of final adjudication but at this
stage, applicant/ accused is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
He further submits that since commercial quantity
was recovered, therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act is applicable.
He further submits that applicant/ accused has failed to satisfy
twin conditions as provided U/s 37 of NDPS Act. Therefore, he
requests that the bail application should be dismissed. In support
of his arguments, he relies upon the judgment
Stanley Chimeizi
Alasonye @ Uka Chukwu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Bail Appln. 3830/24, decided on 27.10.2025.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused has contended
that the Investigating Agency has not mentioned about the weight
of the allegedly recovered substance from the possession of the
applicant/ accused.
This Court has gone through the seizure memo
prepared at the time of recovery of capsules from the possession
of the applicant/ accused. After going through the same, it is
observed that IO has nowhere mentioned about the weight of the
capsules.
Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused has correctly
argued that the offence in question relates to the weight of the
recovered substance as it is weight of the substance which
clarifies as to what offence i.e. under which section the offence
has been committed by the accused/ applicant. As per the Act
itself, small quantity, intermediate quantity and commercial
quantity are treated differently regarding the right of the
-- 4 of 7 --
Pages No. 5/7
applicant/ accused to be admitted to bail as well as regarding the
duration of investigation and punishment to be imposed upon the
applicant/ accused. Thus, the weight of the substance recovered
from any accused is the basis of the offence to verify its gravity.
The absence of mentioning the weight of recovered substance in
seizure memo create serious doubt to the weight of the recovered
substance and benefit of the same goes in favour of the applicant/
accused.
Further, the police has not joined any independent
witness during the investigation and this fact further strengthened
the doubt regarding the weight of the alleged recovered
substance.
At the same time, Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused
has contended that the sampling of the recovered substance was
not done properly as the samples were not taken from all the
boxes. No explanation has been placed on record on behalf of
‘State’ qua the aforesaid lacuna. Thus, the sampling itself is in
question.
The ‘State’ has not contended that the videography
or photography were produced before the Court as per Section
105 BNSS, 2023. The absence of such contention further raised
doubt on the procedure to be followed by the Investigating
Agency.
In addition to that, since the charge-sheet has been
filed against the accused for committing the offence of
commercial quantity, which is punishable for more than 07 years
of imprisonment but police has not called the FSL team at the
spot. This is also material lacuna in the investigation of the case.
These lacunae individually as well as collectively
-- 5 of 7 --
Pages No. 6/7
create serious doubts on the case of prosecution and have tainted
the case of prosecution. Prosecution has not contended that the
accused/ applicant is involved in any other case.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid lacunae as well
as case law relied upon by the Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused,
applicant/ accused has succeeded prima facie to satisfy the twin
conditions as provided U/s 37 of NDPS Act. In the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, bail application of the applicant/
accused is allowed and applicant/ accused Manish Bhatle is
admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.
35,000/- with one surety in the like amount and subject to
condition that :-
(i) That applicant/ accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to the complainant or any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(ii) That applicant/ accused shall upon his release provide his
mobile number to the IO/ SHO and keep his such mobile 'Switch
On' at all times.
(iii)That applicant/ accused shall intimate to the IO/ SHO about
any change in his mobile number or address;
(iv) The applicant/ accused will not influence the witnesses nor
tamper with any evidence;
(v) That applicant/ accused shall not leave the country without
permission of the Court;
(vi) That applicant/ accused shall appear on each and every date
of hearing before the Court.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
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.
-- 6 of 7 --
Pages No. 7/7
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/26.11.2025
-- 7 of 7 --