Interim Order 69

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
FIR No.455/2024
PS Special Cell
State Vs. Tushar Goel
14.07.2026
Present: Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ld. Special PP for State
(through V/C).
Sh. Vimal Tyagi, Sh. Sahil Mann and Sh. Ankur
Garg, Ld. Counsels for applicant namely Tushar
Goel.
SI Dinesh on behalf of the IO in person.
1. By way of the present Bail application, the
applicant/accused namely Tushar Goyal S/o Sh. Subhash Goyal
seeks grant of regular bail in the subject FIR, registered under the
relevant provisions of NDPS Act, PS Special Cell. During the
pendency of the instant bail application, vide order dated
07.07.2026, the accused/applicant has already been admitted to
interim bail, till the disposal of the instant bail application on the
ground of parity with the co-accused persons, who have since
been admitted to bail in the subject FIR.
2. During the course of submissions, it was submitted
by Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused that the instant bail
application has been filed on behalf of accused/applicant,
primarily on the ground of non-supply of the “grounds of arrest
in writing” to the accused, and which has rendered the arrest and
subsequent custody of the accused/applicant in the subject FIR
illegal.
3. Relying upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court in case titled as “Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of
-- 1 of 8 --
2
Maharastra & Anr., (2026) 1 SCC 500”, it was argued on behalf
of the accused that by not supplying the grounds of arrest to the
accused/applicant in writing, as per applicable law, the
fundamental right of the accused/applicant guaranteed under
Article 22 of the Constitution has been violated and the said
substantive constitutional infraction by the investigating agency
shall inexorably result in release of accused from custody.
4. Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant also drew the
attention of the Court to various orders passed by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi vide which at-least 03 co-accused persons have
since been admitted to bail in the subject FIR (i.e. in Bail
Application bearing No. 4328/2025 titled as “Mayur Desale v
State Govt Of NCT”, dated 01.07.2026, in Bail Application
bearing No. 4028/2025 titled as “Amit Kumar Masuriya v State
(NCT of Delhi) through Special Cell”, dated 29.05.2026, in bail
application bearing No.439/2026, titled as “Brijesh Kothia Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)”, dated 13.05.2026). At the same time,
attention was also drawn to the orders passed by Hon’ble High
Court in bail application bearing No. 3562/2025, titled as
“Lokesh @ Manish v. State (NCT of Delhi)”, dated 21.01.2026
and in bail application bearing No. 4034/2026, titled as
Pahalman Budha Magar v. State (NCT of Delhi)”, dated
21.01.2026, wherein the accused persons therein were admitted
to bail, primarily on the ground of non-supply of grounds of
arrest upon the accused persons(s).
5. It has been submitted that admittedly, the grounds
of arrest, in writing, were not supplied upon the
accused/applicant, and thus, the case of the accused/applicant, is
-- 2 of 8 --
3
placed exactly on same footing as that of Brijesh Kothia, Mayur
Desale, Amit Kumar Masuriya and on the ground of parity, the
accused/applicant be also released from custody.
6. At the same time, it has also been submitted that the
accused persons namely Ashwin Ramani and Vijay Bhesania
have since been admitted to regular bail by this court on the
ground of parity and in light of bail orders passed by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi qua the accused persons namely Brijesh
Kothia and Amit Kumar Masuriya. Therefore, prayer has been
made for release of accused/applicant from custody in the subject
FIR.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Special PP for the State has
opposed the instant bail application on the ground that the
accused/applicant is part of the international drug cartel/racket,
which was involved in trafficking of narcotics. However, he
fairly conceded to the fact that the no grounds of arrest, in
writing, were served upon the accused/applicant and therefore,
the case of accused/applicant stands on similar footing as that of
his co-accused persons namely Brijesh Kothia, Amit Kumar
Masuriya, Mayur Desale, Ashwin Ramani and Vijay Bhesania,
who have already been admitted to bail by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi and by this Court solely on the grounds of non-
supply of grounds of arrest. Despite the same, Ld. SPP has
vociferously argued against the grant of bail to the
accused/applicant.
8. Ld. Special PP, appearing on behalf of State through
Special Cell has submitted that the date of decision of Mihir
-- 3 of 8 --
4
Rajesh Shah (supra) is 06.11.2025 and admittedly, the
accused/applicant herein had been arrested much earlier i.e. on
06.10.2024 and, therefore, in light of the law declared by a
division bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as,
“Karan Singh v State (NCT of Delhi)”, W.P. (Crl.) 4203/2025,
dated 23.01.2026, (wherein it has been categorically laid down
that the law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), insofar as it
mandates supply of uniform written communication of grounds of
arrest, upon the accused persons operates prospectively), the
accused/applicant cannot be permitted to raise any grievance qua
non-supply of grounds of arrest, in writing, especially at this
belated stage nor can he be released from custody on this ground
alone.
9. At the same time, it has been argued that the order
dated 13.05.2026, passed by the Hon’ble High Court, by which a
co-accused namely Brijesh Kothia was granted bail, is per
incuriam as it contradicts the law laid down by a Division Bench
of the High Court of Delhi in Karan Singh case (supra). He
submitted that the State (through Special Cell) intends to
challenge the said order dated 13.05.2026 by filing an appeal
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, subject to obtaining the
requisite approval from the competent authority.
10. During the course of submissions, Ld. Special PP
had also drawn the attention of the court towards the order dated
10.07.2026, passed by co-ordinate bench of Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi, in case titled as “Amar Thapa v State of NCT of
Delhi”, bail application bearing No. 1865/2026, where-in the law
laid down by Hon’ble Division bench of Hon’ble High Court of
-- 4 of 8 --
5
Delhi in Karan Singh case (supra), has been re-iterated by
holding that unless because of non-supply of grounds of arrest,
demonstrable prejudice is shown by the accused, he is not
entitled to be released from custody by holding his arrest illegal,
especially when the said ground is taken at a very belated stage
and not at earliest available opportunity, at the time of grant of
remand during the course of investigation.
11. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant
submitted that the order dated 13.05.2026, was passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after taking into consideration, the
law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Dr.
Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India & Anr., dated 01.04.2026 in
SLP (Crl.) bearing No.3326-3327/2026. It was submitted that the
order in Dr. Rajinder Rajan bail matter was passed after the date
of decision of Karan Singh (supra) case and that the said decision
dated 01.04.2026 of Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically laid
down that Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) does not create a fresh
prospective regime but merely re‑affirms the constitutional
requirement inherent in Article 22(1) as earlier elucidated, inter-
alia by Hon’ble Apex Court in cases titled as Pankaj Bansal vs
Union of India (2023 INSC 866), Prabir Purkayastha vs State
(NCT of Delhi) (2024 INSC 414) and Vihaan Kumar vs State of
Haryana & Ors., (2025 INSC 162). Accordingly, it is submitted
that the legal position stands correctly elucidated by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Brijesh Kothia (supra). Consequently, the
said order dated 13.05.2026 cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be termed per incuriam. On the contrary, it was
vociferously argued that it is the order dated 10.07.2026, passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in Amar Thapa (supra)
-- 5 of 8 --
6
matter which is per incuriam.
12. Submissions heard. File perused.
13. Having heard the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the accused/applicant and the State, through the Special
Cell, this Court finds itself confronted with conflicting judgments
of coordinate benches of the Hon’ble High Court, cited by the
respective parties. Faced with two co-ordinate bench decisions
taking diametrically opposite views, and while consciously
refraining from reviewing the correctness of the law enunciated
in either, this Court deems it appropriate to follow the law
recently settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder
Rajan vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra).
14. I must, however, hasten to add that this Court is
mindful of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently
indicated its intention to consider referring the question—of
whether the supply of the grounds of arrest, in writing, to an
accused at the time of arrest is mandatory—to a larger bench.
15. Upon perusal of the record, it is revealed that the
officers of Special Cell, did not provide or serve the grounds of
arrest, in writing, to the accused/applicant at the time of his
apprehension. Considering that the accused/applicant's case
stands on identical footing with the co-accused persons,
regarding the material facts of arrest and remand, the
applicant/accused deserves to be released on the grounds of
parity.
-- 6 of 8 --
7
16. However, the question of whether supplying grounds
of arrest, in writing, is mandatory at the time of arrest is currently
pending reconsideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case titled as “State of Meghalaya V. Sonam Raghuvanshi @
Bitti @ Bittu”, SLP (Crl.) No. 11944/2026 and the State through
Special Cell is likely to challenge the bail order dated
13.05.2026, vide which the co-accused Brijesh Kothia has been
admitted to bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore,
rather than granting regular bail, the Court deems it appropriate
to enlarge the accused/applicant on interim bail pending the
outcome of the Special Cell's anticipated appeal.
17. As a sequitur to the foregoing, in view of failure of
police to satisfy the mandate of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court, in case titled as Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of
Maharastra & Anr., (2026) 1 SCC 500, qua the
accused/applicant namely Safi. A, to whom admittedly the
written “grounds of arrest” were not supplied within the
stipulated time-frame, the court is persuaded to enlarge the
accused/applicant namely Tushar Goyal S/o Sh. Subhash
Goyal on interim bail till 29.08.2026, in the present case, on the
following terms: -
1. The accused/applicant shall furnish a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with 02 sureties in
the like amount from family members;
2. The accused/applicant shall furnish to the Investigating
Officer/S.H.O., Special Cell, Delhi a cellphone number on which
the he may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the
-- 7 of 8 --
8
number is kept active and switched-on at all times;
3. If the accused/applicant has a passport, he shall
surrender the same in the court and shall not travel out of the
country without prior permission of the court;
4. The accused/applicant shall not contact, nor visit, nor
offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case;
5. The accused/applicant shall not tamper with evidence
nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or
that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and
6. In case of any change in his residential address/contact
details, the accused/applicant shall promptly inform the I.O. in
writing.
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 the order be given dasti to the IO as well as to the
Ld. Counsel for applicant/ accused and be communicated to the
Jail Superintendent for information.
(PUNEET NAGPAL)
Special Judge (NDPS)
Central, THC, Delhi/14.07.2026
-- 8 of 8 --