Order 31

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Regular Bail application
STATE Vs. Himanshu Kumar
FIR No. 455/2024
PS Special Cell
U/s 8(C)/20/21/25/27(A)/29 NDPS Act & 209/238 BNS
01.11.2025
This is an application U/s 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking
grant of regular bail to the applicant/accused Himanshu Kumar.
Present: Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ld. Special PP for State
(through VC).
Sh. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused.
IO SI Sarvesh Kumar in person.
Reply to bail application has already been filed.
Copy already supplied.
Arguments heard.
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused submitted that
accused/applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that accused/applicant is having very poor background
but as his physical body is good, therefore, he was hired by co-
accused Tushar Goyal as his Body Guard in June-2024. Since,
co-accused Tushar Goyal assured the accused that he would get
him gun licence being influential person, therefore
applicant/accused joined with him as his body guard. It is
submitted that accused/applicant had to accompany co-accused
Tushar Goyal as and when he was being asked by him, to any
place and on the unfortunately on the date of alleged offence, the
co-accused Tushar Goyal had asked the accused /applicant to
accompany him.
He further argued that allegedly 5.240 kg contraband
(Cocaine Mephedrone) was recovered from the possession of
Contd/-…
-- 1 of 7 --
- 2 -
accused, however, the same is planted by investigating agency
upon accused. It is further argued that in normal course if
employer and employee are present at a place and some goods
are to be taken, then only the employee would take the goods but
in the present case, all the three accused persons including
employer i.e. co-accused Tushar Goyal as well as the
applicant/accused were allegedly having the contraband in then
hands. The driver has been also shown in possession of
contraband. Thus, according to him the case property was planted
upon the accused.
He further argued that investigating agency has not
joined any public witness during the alleged recovery even when
it had crossed the entire Delhi to reach the place of alleged
incident. It is submitted that no grounds of arrest have been
provided to accused/applicant or his family members. Therefore,
according the him, the arrest of applicant/accused is illegal and
he is entitled to be released on bail.
In support of his arguments, he has relied upon
“Stanley Chimeizi Alasonye Alasonye @ Uka Chukwu Vs. The
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Bail application No. 3830/2024
decided on 27.10.2025 and State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan
Etc Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025”.
It is submitted that accused/applicant is in JC since
02.10.2024 and the investigation is already completed and charge
sheet has already been filed. The accused cannot be incarceration
for end number of period even if there is a rider U/sec 37 NDPS
Act. According to him, the Article 21 of Constitution of India
Contd/-…
-- 2 of 7 --
- 3 -
over rides the rider provided U/s 37 of NDPS Act. Ld. counsel
for accused/applicant argued that there is no money trail between
accused/applicant and other co-accused persons. Therefore, he
requested that accused be released on bail.
Per contra, Ld. Special PP for the State as well as IO
have vehemently opposed the bail application of accused stating
that on 01.10.2024, acting on a secret information, accused
Tushar Goyal, Himanshu Kumar i.e. applicant/ accused and
accused Aurangzeb Siddiqui 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
Mahipalpur Extension, Delhi.
They have further argued that there is CDR
connectivity between the applicant/ accused and other co-accused
persons. They also contended that not only on the day of
incident, but earlier also, the applicant/ accused alongwith co-
accused Tushar Goyal, Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi and witness
Rahul i.e. on 28.09.2024, went to Hapur to collect drug
consignment and there, they received contraband from accused
Safi A and Mohd. Akhlaq. They further contended that as per
CDR analysis on 30.09.2024, the applicant/ accused with
aforesaid co-accused persons went to Hotel K.M. Residency, Raj
Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP, and from there, they collected drug
consignment from the Pharma Solution Services godown after
collecting the keys from Abhilasha Gupta.
Contd/-…
-- 3 of 7 --
- 4 -
They further contended that on 31.08.2024 also, the
applicant/ accused received consignment of Ganja from Hotel the
Grand Shobha, Mahipalpur, Delhi and stored it at Tushar Goyal’s
Basant Enclave Residence and his mobile location was recorded
in Mahipalpur, Delhi on the same day.
They further contended that digital evidence is also
available against the applicant/ accused as name of the hotel The
Grand Shobha, Mahipalpur was shared by accused Virender
Singh Baisoya @ Veeru with co-accused Tushar Goyal through
whatsapp then the accused Tushar Goyal has instructed the
applicant/ accused to go to that hotel to collect Ganja
consignment. The message was forwarded to the applicant/a
accused by accused Tushar Goyal from Veeru’s whatsapp
message. Further, there is mobile connectivity between the
applicant/ accused and other co-accused persons.
They also submitted that the grounds of arrest were
informed to the applicant/ accused and even copy of application
for remand and FIR were also supplied to applicant/ accused.
They have also contended that since commercial quantity was
recovered, therefore, Section 37 of NDPS is applicable and they
requested to dismiss the present bail application of the applicant/
accused. They have relied upon Stanley Chimeizi Alsonye @
Uka Chukwu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln.
No. 3830/24, decided on 27.10.2025 & State of Karnataka Vs.
Sri Darshan Etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
As per the case of prosecution, on 01.10.2024,
Contd/-…
-- 4 of 7 --
- 5 -
acting on a secret information, accused Tushar Goyal, Himanshu
Kumar i.e. applicant/ accused and accused Aurangzeb Siddiqui
were 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 Mahipalpur Extension, Delhi.
It is the case of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/
accused that the applicant/ accused is bodyguard of accused
Tushar Goyal and on the day of incident, co-accused Tushar
Goyal had asked him to accompany him, therefore, being
employee, he accompanied co-accused Tushar Goyal and case
property is planted upon the applicant/ accused. It is further
contended that since the applicant/ accused was from poor
background and co-accused Tushar Goyal being influential
person had assured him to get gun licence, therefore, the
applicant/ accused had joined co-accused Tushar Goyal as his
bodyguard. The present contentions of Ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused does not militate the allegations against the applicant/
accused specifically in view of the fact that the commercial
quantity of Cocaine/ Mephedrone was recovered from the
possession of the applicant/ accused.
Further, as per the case of prosecution, 5.240 Kg.
Cocaine/ Mephedrone was recovered from the possession of the
applicant/ accused and thereafter, huge quantity i.e. 547 Kg. of
Cocaine/ Mephedrone and 39.706 Kg. of Hydroponic was
recovered at the instance of aforesaid three accused persons
including applicant/ accused which is a commercial quantity. The
Contd/-…
-- 5 of 7 --
- 6 -
fact that the case property is planted upon him is 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 and at the instance of the
applicant/ accused.
Further, Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused has
contended that grounds of arrest were not supplied to the
applicant/ accused and his family members. 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/ psychotropic 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
Contd/-…
-- 6 of 7 --
- 7 -
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
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 Himanshu Kumar 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,
Central,THC, Delhi/01.11.2025
-- 7 of 7 --