Order 60

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
FIR No.455/2024
PS Special Cell
State Vs. Ashwin Ramani
29.05.2026
Application taken up today as 28.05.2026 was declared as a
holiday on account of “Id-ul-Zuha (Bakrid)” vide notification
bearing No.77/I-G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 26.05.2026 issued by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
Present: 	Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ld. Special PP for State.
Sh. Aditya Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant (through V/C) along with
Sh. Naveen Panwar, Ld. Counsel for accused
(physically present in court).
1. 	By way of the present 2nd Bail application, the
applicant/accused namely Ashwin Ramani S/o Sh. Keshu Bhai
Ramani seeks grant of regular bail in the subject FIR, registered
under the relevant provisions of NDPS Act, PS.
2. 	In view of the fact that the instant application is the
2nd Bail application, filed by the accused/applicant, at the very
outset of the hearing of the instant application, a pointed query
was made to Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant as to the
change of circumstances, that have taken place since the
dismissal of the first bail application of the accused/applicant
and/or the new grounds, which have been agitated in the instant
bail application.
3. 	In reply, it was submitted by Ld. Counsels for the
applicant/accused that the instant bail application has been filed
on behalf of accused/applicant, primarily on the ground of non-
-- 1 of 6 --
2
supply of the “grounds of arrest in writing” to the accused, and
which has rendered the arrest and subsequent custody of the
accused in the subject FIR illegal.
4. 	Relying upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court in case titled as “Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of
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.
5. 	Ld. Counsels for accused/applicant also drew the
attention of the Court to the order dated 13.05.2026, passed in
bail application No.439/2026, titled as “Brijesh Kothia Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi)”, wherein the co-accused namely Brijesh Kothia
has been admitted to bail, primarily on the ground of non-supply
of grounds of arrest to the said co-accused.
6. 	It has been submitted that the accused/applicant,
who is also one of the directors of M/s Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd.,
Ankleshwar, Gujarat along with other co-accused persons
including co-accused Brijesh Kothia. That the case of the
accused/applicant, is placed exactly on same footing as that of
Brijesh Kothari and on the ground of parity, the
accused/applicant be also released from custody.
7. 	At the same time, when the matter was taken up for
-- 2 of 6 --
3
hearing today, Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant further
apprised the court qua the order of even date, passed by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, in matter titled as Amit Kumar Masuriya v
State (NCT of Delhi) through Special Cell, Bail Application No.
4028/2025, wherein one of the co-accused namely Amit Kumar
Masuriya has been admitted to bail, in the subject FIR, on the
basis of parity with the case of the other co-accused namely
Brijesh Kothia.
8. 	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 racket, which was involved in
trafficking of drugs. However, he fairly conceded to the fact that
the case of accused/applicant stands on similar footing as that of
his co-accused persons namely Brijesh Kothia and Amit Kumar
Masuriya, who have already been admitted to bail by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi vide order dated 13.05.2026 and 29.05.2026
respectively.
9. 	Submissions heard. File perused.
10. It is no longer res-integra that an accused can file
successive bail applications, however same can only be
entertained by the Court provided there is a change in the
circumstances or any fresh/ new ground is raised in the
subsequent bail application. In this context, it is pertinent to refer
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit V. State of
Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458', wherein, it has been held as
follows:
-- 3 of 6 --
4
“30. Before concluding, we must note that though an
accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of
bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has
a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier
bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has
a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a
view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.”
11. A bare perusal of order vide which the earlier bail
application of the accused/ applicant was dismissed by Ld.
Predecessor reveals that the legal issue primarily agitated in the
instant bail application pertaining to non-supply of grounds of
arrest to the accused/applicant at the time of his arrest in the
subject FIR or within the time-frame, as is permissible under law
was not raised by the accused/applicant nor was considered by
the Ld. Predecessor. Consequently, the instant bail application
filed on behalf of accused/applicant is maintainable.
12. Perusal of record further reveals that on material
facts pertaining to the legality of the arrest and remand of the
applicant/accused stand exactly on the same footing as that of co-
accused persons namely Brijesh Kothia and Amit Kumar
Masuriya, who have already been admitted to bail vide order
dated 13.05.2026 and 29.05.2026, passed by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi. Vide the said order orders, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
has categorically held and reiterated that non-supply of grounds
of arrest within the stipulated window of time vitiates the arrest
and remand, and entitles the arrestee to be released on bail,
though without nullifying the investigation or trial of the subject
FIR.
-- 4 of 6 --
5
13. Consequently, 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 Ashwin
Ramani S/o Sh. KeshuBhai Ramani also, to who admittedly the
written “grounds of arrest” were not supplied within the
stipulated time-frame and on the ground of parity with co-
accused persons namely Brijesh Kothia and Amit Kumar
Masuriya, the court is persuaded to enlarge the accused/applicant
namely Ashwin Ramani S/o Sh. Keshu Bhai Ramani on regular
bail, 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
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
-- 5 of 6 --
6
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
applicant/ accused through Jail Superintendent for information.
(Puneet Nagpal)
Special Judge, NDPS,
Central, THC, Delhi/29.05.2026
-- 6 of 6 --