Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Regular Bail Application
FIR No. 114/25
State Vs. Devender Kumar
PS Crime Branch
U/s 22/25/29 NDPS Act
13.10.2025
This is an application U/s 483 of BNSS, 2023
seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused.
Present: Sh. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Ld. Special PP for State.
Sh. Deepak Ghai, Ld. counsel for applicant/
accused.
IO is absent
ASI Rajender on behalf of IO in person.
Reply to the bail application is already filed. Copy
supplied.
Arguments heard on the bail application of the
applicant/ accused.
Ld. counsel for the applicant/ accused submits that
allegedly 2360 Tramadol Capsules and 120 Codeine Syrup
Bottles were recovered from the possession of the accused
Manish Bhatle, who is
Bhanja of the applicant/ accused.
According to him,, the said alleged psychotropic substances were
recovered at some other place situated at Malkaganj and not from
the shop of the applicant/ accused.
He further submits that the name of the applicant/
accused emerged in the disclosure statement of accused Manish
Bhatle. Thereafter, applicant/ accused was arrested and his shop
as well as house were searched but nothing incriminating
recovered during the aforesaid proceedings.
He further submits that as per the case of
prosecution, the applicant/ accused is owner of Abhishek
Medicos but licence of the said shop is in the name of Naresh
Contd/-…
-- 1 of 7 --
- 2 -
Kumar, who is real brother of applicant/ accused. He further
submits that though, licence is in the name of real brother of
applicant/ accused but police has not arrested him. He further
submits that as per the case of prosecution, applicant/ accused as
well as his brother Naresh Kumar used to run the shop for 15
days each in a month.
He further submits that allegedly Nikhil, who is
Bhatija of applicant/ accused, had supplied alleged 1440
Tramadol Capsules to the applicant/ accused after taking it from
Ankit Gupta. However, no Tramadol Capsules were recovered
from the shop of accused Ankit Gupta and according to him, only
15 bottles of Codeine Syrup were allegedly recovered which
were to be expired in further two months.
He further submits that as per case of prosecution,
920 Tramadol Capsules were allegedly supplied by accused Jai
Prakash to the applicant/ accused but nothing was recovered from
possession or at the instance of the accused Jai Prakash even
when he was arrested during the investigation.
According to the Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused,
accused Jai Prakash is in the business of supplying general
medicines and it has come in the disclosure statement of accused
Jai Prakash itself. According to him, as per case of prosecution,
accused Jai Prakash is supplying medicines to the applicant/
accused from last about 8/10 years. Thus, according to him,
accused Manish Bhatle is
Bhanja of the applicant/ accused.
Accused Nikhil is
Bhatija of applicant/ accused and accused Jai
Prakash supplying general medicines to the applicant/ accused,
Contd/-…
-- 2 of 7 --
- 3 -
thus, it is obvious that there are mobile phone calls between the
said persons. He further submits that police has even mentioned
the address of applicant/ accused and of co-accused Nikhil of the
same place, therefore, it is not unusual that the aforesaid accused
persons and applicant/ accused were talking to each other
through mobile phone.
He further submits that co-accused Surender and
Ankit Gutpa have already been admitted to bail. He further
submits that since nothing was recovered from the possession or
at the instance of applicant/ accused and it is not unusual to call
his relative and known persons, therefore, applicant/ accused
may be admitted to bail. He further submits that the
investigation is already complete and charge-sheet is already
filed. He further submits that the applicant/ accused is not
involved in any other case. He relies upon a judgment titled as
Vikas Jaiswal Vs. State. According to him, facts of the present
case and of the abovesaid judgment are more or less similar.
Rather, in the said judgment, accused was granted anticipatory
bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore, he requests
that applicant/ accused may be admitted to bail.
Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the state as well as IO
(by way of reply) have vehemently opposed the bail application
and argue that this is the third bail application of the applicant/
accused. According to them, first bail application was dismissed
in July, 2025 and second bail application was dismissed in
September, 2025. They further submit that initially, accused
Manish Bhatle was arrested and he disclosed the name of the
Contd/-…
-- 3 of 7 --
- 4 -
applicant/ accused. The shop of the applicant/ accused is situated
in Malkaganj and recovery of case property was also effected
from Malkaganj only. They further submit that the applicant/
accused as well as Manish Bhatle and Nikhil are connected to
each other. They further argue that if co-accused Jai Prakash
used to supply general medicines to the applicant/ accused from
last about 7/8 years then, applicant/ accused was supposed to
hand over the bills to the police during investigation but no such
bill has been handed over by the applicant/ accused so that it
could be verified. They further submit that role of the applicant/
accused is similar to co-accused Jai Prakash and his bail
application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
16.07.2025. They further submit that commercial quantity was
recovered, therefore, Section 37 NDPS Act is applicable.
Therefore, they request that the bail application should be
dismissed.
In rebuttal, Ld. counsel for the applicant/ accused
submits that in the disclosure statement of accused Jai Prakash,
police has itself recorded that he supplies medicines on 2%
margin. He further submits that the bail application of the
applicant/ accused was dismissed on 16.09.2025 but judgment
relied upon by him is dated 19.09.2025 and facts of both cases
are similar.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
As per record, the name of the applicant/ accused
had emerged in the disclosure statement of accused Manish
Bhatle, who is
Bhanja of the applicant/ accused. As per record,
Contd/-…
-- 4 of 7 --
- 5 -
shop and house of the applicant/ accused were searched by taking
authorization for search from ACP concerned but nothing
incriminating was found in his shop as well as house. The
personal search of the applicant/ accused was also done after
serving notice U/s 50 NDPS Act and then also, nothing
incriminating was recovered from his possession. Though, the
previous bail applications of the applicant/ accused were
dismissed by this Court but at that time, it was not argued on
behalf of accused that the applicant/ accused as well as Manish
Bhatle and accused Nikhil were relatives to each other. It was
also not argued that the address of accused Nikhil and applicant/
accused is the same. Today, Ld. c ounsel has argued aforesaid
both points and prosecution has not disputed these facts. It is
also argued that co-accused Jai Prakash used to supply medicines
to the applicant/ accused from last several years and similar is the
case of prosecution. In such facts and circumstances of the case,
the call details between applicant/ acucsed, accused Manish
Bhatle, accused Nikhil and Jai Prakash cannot be ruled out and it
is not unusual if they are talking to each other. To substantiate
the fact that there was any malafide intention or calls were
regarding committing the offence, police was supposed to search
something more in the CDR/ mobile phones of the accused
persons.
Admittedly, nothing incriminating except the CDR
has been recovered from the mobile phone of the applicant/
accused till date. Ld. counsel for the applicant/ accused has
relied upon a judgment titled as Vikas Jaiswal Vs. State. In that
Contd/-…
-- 5 of 7 --
- 6 -
case also, nothing was recovered from the possession/ shop or at
the instance of said accused and said accused was even admitted
to anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Further,
the recovery was made from accused Manish Bhatle and at that
time, applicant/ accused was not with him. Thus, as of now, there
is only CDR and disclosure statement of accused and co-accused
persons against applicant/ accused. Applicant/ accused is also not
involved in any other case. Therefore, in the considered opinion
of this Court, no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the
applicant/ accused in JC. In the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, bail application of the applicant/ accused is allowed
and applicant/ accused Devender Kumar 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.
Contd/-…
-- 6 of 7 --
- 7 -
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-02,
Central,THC, Delhi/13.10.2025
-- 7 of 7 --