Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1/6-
Bail Application
State Vs. Ankit Gupta
FIR No. 114/25
PS Crime Branch
U/s 22/25/29 NDPS Act
25.09.2025
Present: Sh. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Ld. Special PP for the State.
Sh. Deepak Ghai, Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused.
IO/SI Krishna in person.
Reply to bail application has already been filed. Copy
supplied.
Arguments already heard on behalf of the
applicant/accused on 24.09.2025 where Ld. counsel for the
applicant/accuse submitted that “the applicant/accused has been falsely
implicated in this case. He further submitted that alleged 15 bottles of
Codeine Syrup have been planted upon the applicant/accused and
nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance during the
investigation. He further submitted that the name of the
applicant/accused allegedly came in the disclosure statement of accused
Nikhil @ Gunnu. He had drawn attention of this Court to the disclosure
statement of said accused and argued that even the name of the
applicant/accused was not disclosed by the said accused and he has
referred qua some Ravi Gupta.
He further submitted that even if it is presumed that the
name of the applicant/accused was disclosed by some accused then also
the police had new information about the proposed recovery of
Tramadol Capsules from the applicant/accused but the police has not
reduced the said information in writing and has not complied Section 42
NDPS Act.
-- 1 of 6 --
-2/6-
He had drawn attention of this Court to the copy of Dak
Register filed with the charge-sheet at Page No. 246 and pointed out that
the police has not mentioned about any entry in Dak Register regarding
information under Section 42 NDPS Act. Therefore, according to him, no
compliance was made by the police regarding new information qua the
applicant/accused under Section 42 NDPS Act.
He further submitted that due to non-compliance of
Section 42 NDPS Act, the applicant/accused is entitled to bail.”
Ld. Special PP for the State submits that the case law of
Baby Vs. State, passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court is distinguishable
on facts and not on application in the present facts and circumstance of
the case. According to him, in that case, the IO was investigating some
previous matter and some new information was received by him and
thereafter, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed regarding fresh
compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act. He further submits that in the
present case, the name of the applicant/accused was disclosed by co-
accused. The police had also complied Section 42 NDPS Act at the initial
stage when firstly the secret information was received. According to him,
the police is not required to comply Section 42 NDPS Act again after
some disclosure statement is made by the accused qua other co-accused.
He further submits that the mere technicalities cannot oversight the aim
and object of the act and in a case where commercial quantity is
recovered, the Court has to satisfy itself regarding the twin conditions
laid down under Section 37 NDPS Act.
He further submits that the aforesaid judgment of Baby Vs.
State, passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court was passed in appeal after the
conviction and Section 37 NDPS Act was not discussed in the said
judgment. He further submits that the another judgment of Nagesh
Sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court
-- 2 of 6 --
-3/6-
was heard and decided after leading evidence by the prosecution qua
Section 42 NDPS Act and the accused in said case was in judicial
custody for about 5.5 years but in the present case, the prosecution is yet
to lead evidence qua Section 42 NDPS Act and therefore, according to
him, the said judgment is also not applicable.
Reliance is placed upon State Vs. Kashif by Ld. Special
PP for the State.
In rebuttal, Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused submits
that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is always law
and cannot be differentiated whether it is passed in appeal or in some bail
order. He further submits that in the judgment of Nagesh Sharma Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi, passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court also, similar
plea regarding matter of trial was taken by Ld. Special PP for the State
and the same was dealt with by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Para No. 24
and thereafter, bail was granted to the said accused in said FIR. He
further submits that the police was supposed to comply Section 42 NDPS
Act in respect of the new information came in the knowledge of the
police in the disclosure statement of co-accused Nikhil @ Gunnu qua the
applicant/accused but it has failed.
Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused has also argued that
the premises of the applicant/accused were searched by the police
between the sunset and sunrise and no authorization for search or “reason
to believe” have been obtained/recorded by the police before entering the
premises which are enclosed.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
As per the record, initially accused Manish Bhatle was
arrested and 2370 Tramadol capsules and 120 bottles of Codeine Syrup
were recovered from his possession. Thereafter, accused Davinder was
arrested and during PC remand of accused Manish Bhatle and accused
-- 3 of 6 --
-4/6-
Davinder, accused Nikhil @ Gunnu was arrested. It is in the disclosure
statement of accused Nikhil @ Gunnu the name of the applicant/accused
emerged as Ravi Gupta. Further, PC remand of accused Nikhil @ Gunnu
was obtained and the applicant/accused was identified by him as accused
Ravi Gupta but his correct name was revealed as Ankit Gupta.
Ld. counsel for applicant/accused has drawn attention of
this Court during arguments that during his disclosure statement,
accused Nikhil @ Gunnu had disclosed only about Tramadol Capsules
allegedly procured from the applicant/accused but as per the notice given
to the applicant/accused under Section 50 NDPS Act, the police has
mentioned that they have information that the accused deals with
prohibited medicines i.e. Codeine Syrup and Tramadol capsules.
According to him, the co-accused Nikhil @ Gunnu had only disclosed
about Tramadol Capsules but the police had beforehand manipulated the
secret information regarding Codeine Syrup also. This Court has gone
through the disclosure statement of accused Nikhil @ Gunnu as well as
notice under Section 50 NDPS Act provided to the applicant/accused.
The co-accused Nikhil @ Gunnu had informed the police about the
Tramadol Capsules allegedly supplied by the applicant/accused to him
but he has not whispered about the Codeine Sryrup bottles.
Thus, prima facie, the police has manipulated the
information disclosed by the co-accused Nikhil @ Gunnu. If it had
additional informtion regarding Codeine Syrup also then the police has
not disclosed as to from where the siad information was received. Thus,
there is break in the chain of events. It is not the case of police that it was
searching Tramadol Caosules and then the Codeine Syrup bottles were
recovered from the possession of the accused but as above said, the
police already had information about alleged recovery of Codeine Syrup
-- 4 of 6 --
-5/6-
bottles to be recovered from the applicant/accused. This fact creats
serious doubts on the case of prosecution.
Further, the IO has not mentioned about the timing of
search of the godown of the applicant/accused but as per the facts, the
applicant/accused was arrested on 14.05.2025 at 08:40 PM. Before that
search was conducted at the premises of the applicant/accused. The
prosecution has not explained as to at what time the search was
conducted. Since the applicant/accused was arrested immediately after
the search, therefore, the time must be around 08:00 PM which was
between sunset and sunrise. The prosecution has not obtained any
authorization to search the premises of the applicant/accused between
the aforesaid period. The IO has also not recorded any “reason to
believe” to enter the premises at the aforesaid time. Thus, the police has
not complied the mandatory provisions under NDPS Act. Though the
Court is supposed to appreciate the documents at the time of judgment
but for the limited purpose to decide the bail applciation the documents
can be seen whether the police has complied the mandatory provisions or
not. Here in the case in hands, prima facie, the police has not complied
the aforesaid provisions as provided under NDPS Act.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
applicant/accused has prima facie created serious doubts on the case of
the prosecution.
The recovery of the Codeine Syrup bottles is also tainted
by the Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused by referring the disclosure
statement of the accused Nikhil @ Gunnu as well as notice under Section
50 NDPS Act provided to the applicant/accused. Thus, prima facie, the
applicant/accused has discharged the conditions as provided under
Section 37 NDPS Act for a limited purpose of bail.
-- 5 of 6 --
-6/6-
Therefore, the applicant/accused is admitted to bail, on
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- with one surety of the
like amount, subject to the following conditions :-
(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.
The 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.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the IO, Ld. Counsel
for the applicant/accused and be communicated to the applicant/accused
through Jail Superintendent for information.
(Virender Singh)
Special Judge, NDPS-02,
Central,THC, Delhi/25.09.2025
-- 6 of 6 --