Order 80

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Regular Bail Applications
State Vs. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
FIR No. 455/2024
PS Special Cell
U/s 20/25/21 NDPS Act
10.10.2026
Present : Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ld. Special PP for State
(through VC) alongwith Ld. Proxy Counsel Ms. Lisa
Pegwal (through VC).
Sh. Shaantanu Devansh, Sh. Priyam Kaushik, Sh.
Harshith Pottangi, Sh. Shirish Singh and Ms. Disha
Hooda, (through VC) Ld. Counsels for applicants/
accused persons namely Jitender Singh Gill,
Himanshu and Tushar Goyal.
Sh. Naveen Kumar, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused Safi A (through VC).
Sh. Ram Bachan Choudhary (physically) and Ms.
Radha (through VC), Ld. Counsels for applicant/
accused namely Mohd. Akhlaq.
1. This order shall decide five applications under
Section 483 of BNSS,2023 filed on behalf of accused persons
namely Tushar Goel, Himanshu Kumar, Jatinder Singh Gill @
Jassi, Safi. A and Mohd. Akhlaq seeking grant of regular bail.
2. Since all the five accused persons have taken
common ground for grant of bail i.e., non-supply of written
grounds of arrest, which primarily is main ground for seeking
bail, it is deemed appropriate to decide all five bail applications
by a common order.
3. Separate replies to the bail applications were filed by
the State.
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 1 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 1 of 14 --
4. I heard arguments at length advanced by learned
counsels for the accused persons as well as by learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material available
on record.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsels for
the accused persons as well as learned SPP for the State relied
upon judgments viz. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra
& Anr., (2026) 1 SCC 500; State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702; Bali Ram v. State of H.P. at Shimla,
2025 SCC OnLine HP 5786; Karan Singh v. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 282; Muneer v. State of Kerala,
2026 SCC OnLIne Ker 2328; Lachamadi v. State of Odisha, Bail
Application No. 1447/2026 dated 25.03.2026; National
Investigation Agency v. Shahbaz, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 880;
Brijesh Kothia v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2026 SCC OnLine Del
3410; State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi, (SLP)(Crl.)
No. 11944/2026; Aurangzeb Siddiqui v. State NCT of Delhi, Bail
Application No. 965/2026 & Bharat Kumar v. State of NCT of
Delhi, Bail Application No. 1440/2026; Prabir Purkayastha v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254; Dr. Rajinder Rajan v.
Union of India & Anr., Order dated 01.04.2026 in SLP (Crl.)
Nos. 3326/2026 and 3327/2026 & Pankaj Bansal v. Union of
India & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 576 as well as bail orders passed in
favour of other accused persons in support of their respective
contentions.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made on both sides.
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 2 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 2 of 14 --
7. Succinctly put, case of the prosecution is as under:
8. On 01.10.2024, acting on a secret information, Special
Cell of Delhi police conducted raid at House No. A-3, Khasra
No. 386/2, Gali No. 2, Mahipalpur Extension, Delhi and accused
persons namely, Tushar Goel, Himanshu Kumar and Aurangzeb
Siddiqui were arrested after the recovery of 5.640 Kg, 5.204 Kg
and 5.220 Kg contraband (cocaine and mephedrone) from their
respective possession. Subsequently, at their instance, substantial
consignment of 547 Kg of contraband (cocaine and mephedrone)
and 39.706 Kg of Hydroponic Ganja was recovered from the
third floor of the said house.
9. Thereafter, pursuant to information and identity
details provided by co-accused Tushar Goel, accused Bharat
Kumar, who had come from Mumbai to receive the consignment,
was arrested from Airlift Hotel, Mahipalpur.
10. During sustained interrogation, accused Tushar Goel
disclosed that he was working for one Virender Singh Baisoya @
Veeru, the kingpin, settled in United Kingdom or Dubai, who is
running an international drug cartel along with his associates.
Accused Tushar Goel along with accused Himanshu, had
received the seized contraband from Hapur and Ghaziabad
through Virender Singh Baisoya’s associate namely Jatinder
Singh Gill @ Jassi, who had come from United Kingdom to
deliver the contraband.
11. During further investigation, it was revealed that the
seized consignment of Hydroponic Ganja was sent by Mayank
Jain, Anchit Jain and Ritik Bajaj from Thailand with the
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 3 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 3 of 14 --
assistance of said Virender Singh Baisoya. The said consignment
was received at Mahipalpur, Delhi and was collected by accused
Himanshu.
12. Accordingly, a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued
against said Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi, who was detained at
Amritsar Airport on 03.10.2024 and was arrested. Further, on
05.10.2024, pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Jatinder
Singh Gill @ Jassi, a Fortuner car bearing registration no. DL-
3CCY-4948 was seized from his maternal uncle’s house in
Village Nepal, District Amritsar, Punjab and a total of 1.096 Kg
of contraband (mephedrone, cocaine and benzoylecgonine) was
recovered from the said vehicle.
13. The said Fortuner car was found to be registered in
the name of Ravinder Singh, brother of Virender Singh Baisoya.
The car and the said contraband were provided to accused
Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi by Rishabh Baisoya son of Virender
Singh Baisoya.
14. On further investigation, it was revealed that one
godown at Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad, belonged to Farma
Solution Services and three separate consignments were supplied
from the said godown, one was received by accused Safi A and
Mohd. Akhlaq on 16.09.2024 and was supplied to one Savinder
Singh, a British citizen, who is currently absconding. On
17.09.2024, second consignment was received by accused Safi A
and Mohd. Akhlaq, was stored at accused Akhlaq’s house in
Hapur, U.P. and was supplied to Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi,
Tushar Goel and Himanshu on 28.09.2024. Third consignment
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 4 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 4 of 14 --
was received directly by Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi, Tushar Goel
and Himanshu Kumar on 30.09.2024.
15. During investigation, accused Safi A and Mohd.
Akhlaq were arrested. On 10.10.2024, following an extensive
search, consignment of 208 Kg of contraband was recovered
from a shop/godown in Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. Accused Savinder
Singh meanwhile fled to London on 05.10.2024.
16. It was also revealed that the Rajnagar godown was
taken on rent by employee of Farma Solution Services and the
contraband was being supplied/manufactured by M/s. Aavkar
Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Ankleshwar, Gujarat. On 13.10.2024, a raid was
conducted at M/s. Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. where total of 518.18
Kg of narcotics substances were recovered.
17. Subsequently, accused persons namely Vijay
Bhesaniya, Ashwani Ramani, Brijesh Kothia, Amit Masuriya and
Mayur Desale were arrested.
18. During investigation, involvement of three
partnership firms, i.e. Farma Solution Services, R.M. Bio Chem
and Life Saver Pharma was revealed in the production and
distribution of the seized contraband. It was also established that
one Sandeep Sansar Dhunay and Virender Singh Baisoya had
formed these firms with the intent to facilitate illegal drug
operations with the help of their conduits based in Mumbai and
Pune.
19. Further, on 04.12.2024, accused Jackson Fernandez,
who was involved in registration of the firms R.M. Bio Chem and
Life Saver Pharma and in depositing funds into their accounts,
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 5 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 5 of 14 --
was arrested, who was working under the directions of Sandeep
Dhunay and Virender Singh Baisoya.
20. On 05.12.2024, accused Ravinder Singh @ Ravi,
brother of accused Virender Singh Baisoya and the registered
owner of the said Fortuner car was arrested.
21. Another accused namely Tilak Sharma was arrested
on 10.01.2026 from Sikkim and accused Ritik Bajaj, who earlier
was declared proclaimed offender, was arrested on 23.12.2025.
22. The kingpin of this international drug cartel namely
Virender Singh Baisoya has been deported to India and has been
arrested in the present case. His son accused Rishabh Baisoya has
also been arrested.
23. The last known digital footprint of mastermind
Sandip Sansar Dhunay was traced to Pakistan on 12.11.2024.
24. The present case pertains to a well organized
international drug cartel operating across the United Kingdom,
Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand and Dubai, which has been actively
involved in illegally smuggling and manufacturing contraband
substances in India in large commercial quantities and
distributing them within the country.
25. Chargesheet/ supplementary chargesheet have been
filed against 19 accused persons out of which 13 accused persons
are in JC and 6 accused persons are on bail.
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 6 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 6 of 14 --
26. Status of bail orders passed in respect of accused
persons is as under:-
Sl.
No.
Name of
accused
Date of
Order
Bail Order by
1. Ravinder Singh 17.10.2025 Special Judge (NDPS)
(bail granted)
(bail order is under
challenge before Hon’ble
HC)
2. Aurangzeb
Siddiqui
12.03.2026 Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi
(bail dismissed)
3. Brijesh Kothia 13.05.2026 Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi
(bail granted)
4. Amit Masuriya 29.05.2026 Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi
(bail granted)
5. Vijay Bhesaniya 29.05.2026 Special Judge (NDPS)
(bail granted)
6. Ashwani
Ramani
29.05.2026 Special Judge (NDPS)
(bail granted)
7. Mayur Desale 01.07.2026 Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi
(bail granted)
8. Bharat Kumar 30.07.2026 Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi
(bail dismissed)
9. Aurangzeb
Siddiqui
07.09.2026 Hon’ble Supreme Court
(SLP dismissed as
withdrawn)
10. Bharat Kumar 24.09.2026 Hon’ble Supreme Court
(SLP dismissed)
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 7 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 7 of 14 --
27. The grounds for seeking grant of bail by each
accused are mentioned in a table as under for the sake of
convenience :-
S.
No.
Name of accused Grounds for Bail Date of Arrest
1. Tushar Goel
(Second Bail
Application)
Non-supply of written
grounds of arrest.
02.10.2024
2. Himanshu
Kumar
(Second Bail
Application)
Non-supply of written
grounds of arrest.
02.10.2024
3. Jatinder Singh
Gill @ Jassi
(Second Bail
Application)
(i) Non-supply of
written grounds of
arrest.
(ii) Doubtful recovery
of contraband.
(iii) No evidence
available on record
against the accused.
(iv)Trial is likely to
take substantial time
to conclude.
(v) Lack of
independent witness.
(vi) Grave medical
condition.
03.10.2024
4. Safi. A
(Third Bail
Application)
Non-supply of written
grounds of arrest.
06.10.2024
5. Mohd. Akhlaq
(Second Bail
Application)
(i) Non-supply of
written grounds of
arrest.
(ii) Section 29 NDPS
Act not made out.
(iv) No recovery from
conscious possession
07.10.2024
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 8 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 8 of 14 --
(A) Non-supply of written grounds of arrest:-
28. As per the contentions of learned counsels of the
accused persons, the sheet-anchor to claim the bail on the ground
of non-supply of ‘written grounds of arrest’ is the interpretation
of relevant judgments on the subject by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in Brijesh Kothia (supra) to the effect that written
grounds of arrest are mandatory to be provided at the time of
effecting arrest and non-compliance thereof will vitiate the trial.
Brijesh Kothia is one of the accused persons in the present case
before this Court who was granted bail by the Hon’ble High
Court on the said ground which admittedly has not been
challenged by the State.
29. Per contra, learned SPP for the State laid emphasis
on Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra) to
contend that arrest of the accused persons was effected prior to
judgment pronounced in
Mihir Rajesh Shah whereby the said
ground was made applicable ‘prospectively’ and accordingly, the
said ground is not available to the accused persons.
30. For better appreciation of contentions of both the
sides, main judgments on the subject relied upon by both the
sides are mentioned in a tabular form as under:-
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 9 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 9 of 14 --
S.
No.
Judgment Title Delivered
by
Strength Date of judgment
1. Pankaj Bansal v.
Union of India
and Others
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
Two
Judges
03.10.2023
2. Prabir
Purkayastha v.
State of NCT of
Delhi
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
Two
Judges
15.05.2024
3. Vihaan Kumar
v. State of
Haryana and
Anr.
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
Two
Judges
07.02.2025
4. State of
Karnataka v. Sri
Darshan Etc.
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
Two
Judges
14.08.2025
5. Ahmad Mansoor
v. REP. by ACP
and Anr.
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
Two
Judges
14.10.2025
6. Mihir Rajesh
Shah v. State of
Maharashtra and
Anr.
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
Two
Judges
06.11.2025
7. Dr. Rajender
Rajan v. Union
of India and
Anr.
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
Two
Judges
01.04.2026
8. Brijesh Kothia v.
State
Hon’ble
High Court
of Delhi
Single
Judge
13.05.2026
9. State of
Meghalaya v.
Sonam
Raghuvanshi
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
Two
Judges
23.07.2026
31.	31. A perusal of judgment in	A perusal of judgment in Brijesh Kothia	Brijesh Kothia (supra)	(supra)
would show that Hon’ble High Court discussed the law on the	would show that Hon’ble High Court discussed the law on the
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 10 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 10 of 14 --
subject by referring relevant judgments to hold that the decision	subject by referring relevant judgments to hold that the decision
in	in
Mihir Rajesh Shah
Mihir Rajesh Shah does not move forward the date from which	does not move forward the date from which
the verdict in	the verdict in
Pankaj Bansal
Pankaj Bansal takes effect, i.e. 03.10.2023. Hon’ble	takes effect, i.e. 03.10.2023. Hon’ble
High Court further held that the said authorities leave no room	High Court further held that the said authorities leave no room
for doubt that non-supply of written grounds of arrest within the	for doubt that non-supply of written grounds of arrest within the
stipulated window vitiates the arrest and the remand, irrespective	stipulated window vitiates the arrest and the remand, irrespective
of the statute under which the arrest is made, though without	of the statute under which the arrest is made, though without
invalidating the investigation or the trial. It was further observed	invalidating the investigation or the trial. It was further observed
that a reading of	that a reading of Dr. Rajender Rajan	Dr. Rajender Rajan (supra) shows that	(supra) shows that
Mihir
Mihir
Rajesh Shah
Rajesh Shah does not create a fresh prospective regime but	does not create a fresh prospective regime but
merely reaffirms the constitutional requirement inherent in	merely reaffirms the constitutional requirement inherent in
Article 22(1).	Article 22(1).
32.	32. However, it is worthy to note here that vide order	However, it is worthy to note here that vide order
dated 17.08.2026 in Bail Appln. 2856/2026 of another accused	dated 17.08.2026 in Bail Appln. 2856/2026 of another accused
namely Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi, who was granted interim	namely Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi, who was granted interim
bail, instead of regular bail, by the learned predecessor, Hon’ble	bail, instead of regular bail, by the learned predecessor, Hon’ble
High Court observed about pronouncement of decision in	High Court observed about pronouncement of decision in Sonam	Sonam
Raghuvanshi	Raghuvanshi (supra) by the Apex Court. The bail application was	(supra) by the Apex Court. The bail application was
disposed of leaving all rights and contentions open.	disposed of leaving all rights and contentions open.
33.	33. In	In Sonam Raghuvanshi	Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme	(supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated the settled law that serving of grounds of arrest is	Court reiterated the settled law that serving of grounds of arrest is
mandatory which has been introduced as a judge-made law vide	mandatory which has been introduced as a judge-made law vide
judgment in	judgment in
Mihir Rajesh Shah
Mihir Rajesh Shah in order to give effect to Article	in order to give effect to Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India and the said decision was made	22(1) of the Constitution of India and the said decision was made
to apply prospectively. The Apex Court further laid down the	to apply prospectively. The Apex Court further laid down the
fundamental differences between non-service of grounds of arrest	fundamental differences between non-service of grounds of arrest
and non-furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder, while the first	and non-furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder, while the first
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 11 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 11 of 14 --
category might vitiate the arrest, in the second category, one has	category might vitiate the arrest, in the second category, one has
to see prejudice caused to the accused. As observed in the said	to see prejudice caused to the accused. As observed in the said
case, the accused was arrested on 09.06.2025, i.e. much before	case, the accused was arrested on 09.06.2025, i.e. much before
the date of pronouncement of	the date of pronouncement of
Mihir Rajesh Shah
Mihir Rajesh Shah. Accordingly,	. Accordingly,
the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the Hon’ble	the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court and order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the Trial Court	High Court and order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the Trial Court
were set aside, directing the accused to surrender before the	were set aside, directing the accused to surrender before the
concerned Trial Court.	concerned Trial Court.
34.	34. Recently, vide judgment dated 21.09.2026, in	Recently, vide judgment dated 21.09.2026, in
Criminal Appeal No. 4234/2026 titled	Criminal Appeal No. 4234/2026 titled Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol	Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol
v.	v. State of Punjab	State of Punjab, the Apex Court again referred to	, the Apex Court again referred to
Pankaj
Pankaj
Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, Mihir Rajesh Shah,
Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, Mihir Rajesh Shah,
Sri Darshan
Sri Darshan and	and
Sonam Raghuvanshi
Sonam Raghuvanshi to hold in para 21.1.1 that	to hold in para 21.1.1 that
in	in
Sonam Raghuvanshi
Sonam Raghuvanshi, it was noted that the decision in	, it was noted that the decision in
Mihir
Mihir
Rajesh Shah
Rajesh Shah is prospective. Further, in para 22, the Apex Court	is prospective. Further, in para 22, the Apex Court
observed in no uncertain terms that	observed in no uncertain terms that it is	it is
Mihir Rajesh Shah
Mihir Rajesh Shah which	which
sums up the correct legal position and lays down the correct law	sums up the correct legal position and lays down the correct law
which is binding and which is in tune with the consistent line of	which is binding and which is in tune with the consistent line of
jurisprudence developed over the years by the Court.	jurisprudence developed over the years by the Court. In para 24,	In para 24,
the Apex Court reiterated that being bound by the ratio laid down	the Apex Court reiterated that being bound by the ratio laid down
in	in
Mihir Rajesh Shah
Mihir Rajesh Shah and with the conclusions summarized in	and with the conclusions summarized in
paragraph 66 of the said judgment, the course of action declared	paragraph 66 of the said judgment, the course of action declared
in paragraph 65 thereof is endorsed. The Apex Court further	in paragraph 65 thereof is endorsed. The Apex Court further
stressed upon and strengthened the safeguards introduced by way	stressed upon and strengthened the safeguards introduced by way
of said judgment when it comes to re-arrest of an accused who is	of said judgment when it comes to re-arrest of an accused who is
released from custody for breach of Article 22 (1).	released from custody for breach of Article 22 (1).
35.	35. In view of afore-mentioned authoritative	In view of afore-mentioned authoritative
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 12 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 12 of 14 --
pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in	pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh	Jaskaran Jeet Singh
(supra), which is binding on all the Courts under Article 141 of	(supra), which is binding on all the Courts under Article 141 of
the Constitution of India, in my considered opinion, reliance	the Constitution of India, in my considered opinion, reliance
placed on	placed on
Brijesh Kothia
Brijesh Kothia by the learned counsels for the accused	by the learned counsels for the accused
persons is of no help to the accused persons. As all the five	persons is of no help to the accused persons. As all the five
accused persons were arrested much prior to pronouncement of	accused persons were arrested much prior to pronouncement of
judgment in	judgment in
Mihir Rajesh Shah
Mihir Rajesh Shah, the claimed ground for	, the claimed ground for
enlargement on bail is not available to them.	enlargement on bail is not available to them.
36.	36. Moreover, it is also noteworthy that vide order dated	Moreover, it is also noteworthy that vide order dated
12.03.2026 in Bail Appln. 965/2026, Hon’ble High Court	12.03.2026 in Bail Appln. 965/2026, Hon’ble High Court
dismissed the bail application of another accused namely	dismissed the bail application of another accused namely
Aurangzeb Siddiqui who preferred SLP(Crl.) no. 14417/2026	Aurangzeb Siddiqui who preferred SLP(Crl.) no. 14417/2026
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed as	before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed as
withdrawn on 07.09.2026.	withdrawn on 07.09.2026.
37.	37. Vide order dated 30.07.2026 in Bail Appln.	Vide order dated 30.07.2026 in Bail Appln.
1440/2026, Hon’ble High Court dismissed the bail application of	1440/2026, Hon’ble High Court dismissed the bail application of
yet another accused namely Bharat Kumar (after pronouncement	yet another accused namely Bharat Kumar (after pronouncement
of judgment in	of judgment in
Brijesh Kothia
Brijesh Kothia and grant of bail to other accused	and grant of bail to other accused
persons). Again, SLP(Crl.) no. 17551/2026 preferred before the	persons). Again, SLP(Crl.) no. 17551/2026 preferred before the
Apex Court by accused Bharat Kumar was dismissed on	Apex Court by accused Bharat Kumar was dismissed on
24.09.2026.	24.09.2026.
38.	38. Accordingly, the ground i.e., non-supply of written	Accordingly, the ground i.e., non-supply of written
grounds of arrest, is not available to the accused persons to be	grounds of arrest, is not available to the accused persons to be
entitled for grant of bail.	entitled for grant of bail.
Other Grounds:-	Other Grounds:-
39.	39. As mentioned in the afore-mentioned table, only	As mentioned in the afore-mentioned table, only
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 13 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 13 of 14 --
accused persons namely Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi and Md.	accused persons namely Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi and Md.
Akhlaq have taken other grounds as well however, as the learned	Akhlaq have taken other grounds as well however, as the learned
counsels for the accused persons limited their submissions to the	counsels for the accused persons limited their submissions to the
aforesaid ground of non-supply of written grounds of arrest, the	aforesaid ground of non-supply of written grounds of arrest, the
rest of the grounds are not being adverted to at this stage.	rest of the grounds are not being adverted to at this stage.
40.	40. In view of above discussed legal propositions and in	In view of above discussed legal propositions and in
the given facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, all	the given facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, all
five accused persons are not entitled for grant of bail. All five	five accused persons are not entitled for grant of bail. All five
bail applications moved on behalf of applicants/ accused persons	bail applications moved on behalf of applicants/ accused persons
namely	namely Tushar Goel, Himanshu Kumar, Jatinder Singh Gill @	Tushar Goel, Himanshu Kumar, Jatinder Singh Gill @
Jassi, Safi. A and Mohd. Akhlaq	Jassi, Safi. A and Mohd. Akhlaq are accordingly	are accordingly dismissed	dismissed..
41. Copy of the order be given dasti to the IO as well as
to the Ld. Counsels for applicants/ accused persons and be
communicated to the applicants/ accused persons through Jail
Superintendent for information.
(KULDEEP NARAYAN)
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central,THC, Delhi/10.10.2026
FIR No. 455/24
State v. Tushar Goyal & Ors.
Page No. 14 of 14
PS Special Cell
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi
-- 14 of 14 --