Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Regular Bail Application
State Vs. Harish Chander, FIR No. 132/25
PS Crime Branch, U/s 22/29 NDPS Act
10.04.2026
This is an application U/s 483 of BNSS, 2023
seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused Harish.
Present: Sh. K.P. Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for state.
Sh. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, Ld. counsel for
applicant/ accused.
IO SI Manoj Kumar in person.
Reply to the bail application is filed. Copy supplied.
Arguments heard.
Ld. counsel for the applicant/ accused submits that
the applicant/ accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
He has pointed out towards GD No. 34A dated
01.06.2025 vide which allegedly, compliance U/s 42 of NDPS
Act was complied by the Investigating Agency.
He has taken the Court to the contents of the said
GD and pointed out that as per the said GD, Insp. Akshay was
authorized by ACP Rajpal Dabas to proceed as per NDPS Act,
however, as per the charge-sheet, HC Vinod apprehended the
applicant/ accused, given notice U/s 50 NDPS Act and made
alleged recovery from the possession of applicant/ accused.
According to him, HC Vinod was not authorized person to do
aforesaid investigation.
He further argues that the ‘authorization’ was only
given to Insp. Akshay, who could not further delegate his
‘authority’ to conduct investigation in aforesaid manner and
therefore, the apprehension as well as recovery of alleged
contraband from the possession of applicant/ accused itself is
illegal and it has vitiated the whole proceedings.
Contd/-…
-- 1 of 7 --
- 2 -
In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 137. (COPY NOT
GIVEN).
He further argues that as per the case of prosecution,
the secret information was received at 10:30 AM. The
Investigation Agency had departed from the office at 1:21 PM
and reached at Tis Hazari Court at 1:50 PM i.e. in 29 minutes.
According to him, police had taken a very busy route and
Investigating Agency cannot cover distance of about 25
Kilometers in Delhi at peak hours from that route and therefore,
story of prosecution is doubtful.
He further argues that allegedly, applicant/ accused
was apprehended near about Tis Hazari Courts, which is a busy
place and public persons are always available but as per record,
no public person has been joined during the alleged recovery and
investigation.
He further argues that as per record, applicant/
accused was apprehended at about 1:50 PM but the video of
seizure proceedings of case property was prepared at about 8 PM,
therefore, there were chances of planting the case property upon
him.
He further argues that the police has not secured any
CCTV footage of nearby places in support of its version. He
further argues that as per the case of prosecution, Tramadol
Capsules were recovered from the possession of the applicant/
accused. According to him, there were three constituents in the
said drug and prohibited drug can be easily measured and the
judgment of Hira Singh Vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal no.
-- 2 of 7 --
Contd/-…
- 3 -
722/2017 decided on 22.04.2022 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India is not applicable.
He further argues that though the applicant/ accused
is allegedly involved in other cases but he is already on bail in
those cases and he is regularly appearing in those cases during
trial. He further argues that applicant/ accused is in JC since
01.06.2025. Investigation is already complete and charge-sheet
has already been already filed. He further argues that there are no
chances of fleeing of applicant/ acucsed. He further argues that
all co-accused persons are already on bail in this case, therefore,
he requests that the applicant/ accused may be admitted to bail.
Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as IO
have vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant/
accused stating that Section 42 of NDPS Act was complied by
the Investigating Agency in letter and spirit. By submitting that,
they have pointed out that in GD no. 34A dated 01.06.2025 itself,
ACP concerned had directed Insp. Akshay to constitute a raiding
team only and thereafter, the raiding team was constituted. The
said fact was mentioned on the said GD and said GD was also
put before ACP concerned.
Thus, according to them, HC Vinod was authorized
person and there is not any lacuna in compliance of Section 42 of
NDPS Act.
They further submit that on 01.06.2025, it was
Sunday and it was not impossible to cover the distance of 25
Kilometers in 29 minutes.
They further argue that the commercial quantity of
-- 3 of 7 --
Contd/-…
- 4 -
Tramadol Capsules was recovered from the possession of the
applicant/ accused and therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act is
applicable. They further argue that applicant/ accused is also
involved in other cases and therefore, conditions as provided U/s
37(i)(b) of NDPS Act are not satisfied by the applicant/ accused.
They further argue that non-joining of public
witnesses during investigation does not entitle the applicant/
accused to be admitted to bail. According to them, Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has also held to this effect and declared
that if the evidence of police officials is credible, then, non-
joining of public witness is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
They further argue that the videography U/s 105 BNSS was done
at about 2:30 PM and not at about 8 PM.
In view of abovesaid, they request that the bail
application should be dismissed.
In rebuttal, Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused
submits that as per GD No. 34A, only Insp. Akshay was
authorized. He also argues that the seizure memo of case
property was prepared at about 8 pm and Investigating Agency
has not joined the public witness during recovery itself is
doubtful.
Submisisons considered. Record perused.
As per the facts of the case, on 01.06.2025,
applicant/ accused was apprehended on secret information and
commercial quantity of Spasmo Proxyvonplus containing
commercial quantity of Tramadol was recovered from his
Contd/-…
-- 4 of 7 --
- 5 -
possession.
Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused has contended
that as per the facts of the case, Insp. Akshay was authorized by
ACP concerned to conduct the raid and therefore, raid conducted
by HC Vinod is illegal.
On perusal of judicial file, it is observed that secret
information was received by HC Sandeep Kumar and he apprized
Insp. Akshay, who further informed ACP Rajpal Dabas about the
secret information. Thereafter, ACP concerned directed to take
action as per law. The GD No. 34A dated 01.06.2025 in
compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act is already available on
judicial file.
On perusal of said GD, there is specific noting on
GD to the effect, “forwarded please, HC Vinod may please be
authorized”. Thereafter, said noting was put before ACP and
ACP had signed the same on the same day i.e. on 01.06.2025.
Therefore, as per the facts, it cannot be said that HC Vinod was
not authorized person to conduct the present investigation.
Hence, present contention is rejected.
Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused has further
contended that the police could not have covered the distance of
25 Kilometers in 29 minutes of such busy route.
During arguments, Ld. Addl. PP for the state argued
that there was a Sunday. Further, in the considered opinion of
this court, it depends upon various factors as to whether the
abovesaid distance can be covered in 29 minutes or not, for
example, there may not be traffic on the way. Therefore, this
contention is also not acceptable at this stage.
Contd/-…
-- 5 of 7 --
- 6 -
Further, Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused has
contended that the police has not joined any public witness. It is
observed that in various judgments Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has held that if evidence of police officials is credible, then
accused cannot be given any benefit of non-joining of public
witness. Furthermore, as per the case of prosecution, they asked
public witness to join the investigation but they left the place.
Therefore, present contention is also meritless.
Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused has also
contended that the applicant/ accused was apprehended at about
2;15 PM but video of seizure proceedings were recorded at about
8 PM. However, as per the IO, case property was seized and its
videography was prepared at 2:30 PM. Therefore, present
contention is also against the facts of the case.
As per record, as abovesaid, commercial quantity of
contraband was recovered and accused/ applicant was supposed
to satisfy twin conditions as provided U/s 37 of NDPS Act but
prima facie, he has failed to satisfy the said conditions.
The allegations against the applicant/ accused are
serious in nature. 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.
Contd/-…
-- 6 of 7 --
- 7 -
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 Harish Chander 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/10.04.2026
-- 7 of 7 --