Interim Order 28

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Regular Bail Application
FIR No. 455/24
State Vs. Aurangzeb Siddiqui
PS Special Cell
U/s 8(C)/20/21/25/27(A)/29 NDPS Act & 209/238 BNS
25.10.2025
This is an application U/s 483 of BNSS, 2023
seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused.
Present: Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ld. Special PP for State.
Sh. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, Ld. counsel for applicant/
accused.
IO SI Shailesh Kumar in person.
Reply to the bail application is already filed. Copy
already supplied.
Arguments heard on the bail application of the
applicant/ accused.
Ld. counsel for the applicant/ accused submits that
the applicant/ accused is falsely implicated in this case. He
further submits that admittedly, as per the case of prosecution,
applicant/ accused is driver of Subhash Goyal i.e. father of co-
accused Tushar Goyal. He further submits that the mother of co-
accused Tushar Goyal has given her statement to the effect that
on the day of incident, the health of co-accused Tushar Goyal
was not well and it is at the instance of mother of accused Toshar
Goyal, the applicant/ accused remained on duty even after 7 PM.
He further submits that thereafter, allegedly co-
accused Tushar Goyal told the applicant/ accused that he would
teach the applicant/ accused as to how to earn money. According
to him, applicant/ accused had not accepted the offer of co-
accused Tushar Goyal and being driver, he was bound to drive
the vehicle and did not have any option. He further submits that
Contd/-…
-- 1 of 6 --
- 2 -
when accused Tushar Goyal reached the spot, then only co-
accused Tushar Goyal had allegedly went inside the godown and
applicant/ accused remained outside and he was talking to his
brother. He further submits that thereafter, police allegedly
recovered the psychotropic substance and planted some of the
portion of psychotropic substance upon the applicant/ accused
also.
He further argues that the possession of psychotropic
substance itself is not an incriminating evidence in the absence of
required animus. According to him, since applicant/ accused was
not having any knowledge about the contents of alleged packets
in his hands, therefore, he cannot be said to be in conscious
possession of alleged psychotropic substance.
He further submits that the grounds of arrest were
not supplied to the applicant/ accused and therefore, he is entitled
to be granted bail. He has relied upon
Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union
of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576; Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), 2024 (8) SCC 254 & Vihan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana, [2025 (5) SCC 799, Kasirredy Upender Reddy Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, [2025 SC Online SC 1228]. In view of
abovesaid, he requests that applicant/ accused may be admitted to
bail.
Per contra, Ld. Special PP for the state as well as IO
have vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant/
accused stating that no doubt, applicant/ accused was driver of
father of co-accused Tushar Goyal, however, he is very much
involved in the present case and he was having knowledge of the
Contd/-…
-- 2 of 6 --
- 3 -
contraband. They further submit that 5.220 Kg. Cocaine/
Mephedrone was recovered from the possession of applicant/
accused which is a commercial quantity. According to them,
applicant/ accused was having knowledge about psychotropic
substance recovered from his possession. They further argue that
the arguments that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the
applicant/ accused is not tenable as according to them, the
remand application as well as copy of FIR was already supplied
to the applicant/ accused and other co-accused persons and this
fact is mentioned in the order dated 02.10.2024 as annexed with
the charge-sheet from pages no. 1093 to 1095. They rely upon
State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1702 dated 14.08.2025 and argue that even if grounds of arrest
were not supplied to the applicant/ accused then also, no
prejudice was caused to the applicant/ accused and he was having
every knowledge as to why he was arrested in the present case as
he was communicated with his grounds of arrest through his
remand application. Therefore, they submit that the bail
application should be dismissed.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
As per the case of prosecution, on 01.10.2024,
acting on a secret information, accused Tushar Goyal, Himanshu
Kumar and applicant/ accused apprehended and Cocaine/
Mephedrone weighing 5.640 Kg., 5.240 Kg. and 5.220 Kg.
respectively was recovered from their possession. Thereafter, on
their instance, huge quantity i.e. 547 Kg. of Cocaine/
Mephedrone and 39.706 Kg. of Hydroponic were recovered from
Contd/-…
-- 3 of 6 --
- 4 -
Mahipalpur Extension, Delhi.
It is the case of Ld. counsel for applicant/ acucsed
that the applicant/ accused is driver of the father of co-accused
Tushar Goyal and on the day of incident, co-accused Tushar
Goyal was not well and on the instructions of mother of co-
accused Tushar Goyal, the applicant/ accused was doing
overtime. Though, it is the case of prosecution that co-accused
Tushar Goyal had asked the applicant/ accused that he would
teach her as to how money is to earn but he did not accept the
offer of co-accused Tushar Goyal but being driver, he was bound
to drive the car of co-accused Tushar Goyal. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the plea taken by the applicant/ accused is
exclusively in his knowledge and the onus to prove the same is
upon him which can be discharged only by leading admissible
evidence during trial. Therefore, this argument is not of any help
of the applicant/ accused. Further, as per the case of prosecution,
5.220 Kg. Cocaine/ Mephedrone was recovered from the
possession of the applicant/ accused and thereafter, the remaining
contraband was recovered at the instance of aforesaid three
accused persons including applicant/ accused which is a
commercial quantity. The fact that the case property is planted
upon him is also a triable issue and as of now, there is enough
evidence on record to prima facie believe that commercial
quantity of Cocaine/ Mephedrone was recovered from the
possession of the applicant/ accused.
Further, Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused has
contended that grounds of arrest were not supplied to the
Contd/-…
-- 4 of 6 --
- 5 -
applicant/ accused. As per record, notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was
served upon the applicant/ accused before taking his personal
search and in the notice it is specifically mentioned that there is
reason to believe that the applicant/ accused possesses narcotics
drugs/ psychrophic substance/ controlled substance etc. and he
was given option to search the police officials/ their vehicles as
well as to get himself searched before a Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate but he refused. The reply of applicant/ accused is
available on the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act itself. According to the
case of prosecution, the copy of FIR as well as copy of
application for remand were also supplied to accused/ applicant.
Further, there is no specific proforma to give grounds of arrest to
any accused in BNSS or NDPS Act, therefore, it cannot be said
that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the applicant/
accused. At the same time, applicant/ accused has failed to put
forth whether he has faced any prejudice due to aforesaid alleged
lacuna/ non-compliance. Further, Ld. Special PP for state has
relied upon
State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc. (supra).
Thus, the allegations against the applicant/ accused
are serious in nature and commercial quantity was recovered
from him. 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
Contd/-…
- 6 -
-- 5 of 6 --
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 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 Aurangzeb Siddiqui 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-02,
Central,THC, Delhi/25.10.2025
-- 6 of 6 --