Interim Order 24

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
Regular Bail Application
IA 3 in SC 495/2023
STATE Vs. Mohan Gupta
FIR NO. 54/2026
PS Crime Branch
U/s 21(c) & 29 NDPS Act
25.02.2026
This is an application U/s 483 of BNSS, 2023
seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused.
Present: Sh. Vishal Gupta, Ld. Subst. Addl. PP for State.
Mr. Aditya Aggarwal (through VC) and Md. Yasir
(physically), Ld. counsel for the applicant/ accused.
IO SI Vikas Deep in person.
Reply to bail application is already filed. Copy
already supplied.
Arguments heard.
At the outset, Ld. Counsels for accused are relying
upon order dt. 21.04.2025 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide
which according to them, the matter was time bound. But
according to them till date the charge has not been framed.
According to them, vide said order the prosecution was directed
to follow up the FSL result and FSL director was also directed to
expedite the preparation and submissions of report in relation to
the present case.
They further pointed out that the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi further directed that upon receipt of FSL result
the Ld. Trial Court shall proceed to hear arguments on the point
of charge without any delay and after framing of charges the
examination of raiding team members shall be conducted
expeditiously.
They stressed on the point that the aforesaid order is
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
dated 21.04.2025 but till date though the FSL result has been
filed but the pendrive having data of mobile phone of
applicant/accused has not been provided by the IO to the
applicant/accused. They have further pointed out that even the
court had to issue BWs against IO on 01.12.2025 but till today
the said pendrive has not been supplied. Due to aforesaid lacuna
on behalf of prosecution, the matter is still pending for framing
of charge. They further submit that at the time of abovesaid
order, the judicial custody of applicant/accused was about two
years two months but now it has become about three years.
According to them, the applicant/accused cannot be kept in JC
for such a long period due to non-action on the part of
prosecution.
They further submit that the detention of
applicant/accused has been revoked by Central Government u/s
3(1) of PIT NDPS Act, 1988 vide order dt. 14.02.2025 against
applicant/accused. They further submit that the applicant/accused
has already been admitted to bail in two other FIRs by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi as well as by Ld. Sessions Court. They
further submit that applicant/accused cannot be kept in JC for
long time, that also due to inaction on behalf of prosecution
In view of abovesaid, they requests to release the
applicant/ accused on bail.
Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and IO have
vehemently opposed the bail application. IO also submits that
original pendrive is in the court. According to him, since he was
on continuous raid from last about one month, therefore, copy of
pendrive could not be obtained from court and it could not be
supplied to applicant/accused.
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
They further submit that the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi had not time bound the matter. They also submit that
commercial quantity of Heroin was recovered from the
possession of applicant/accused, therefore, the applicant/accused
has to satisfy the twin conditions as provided U/s 37 NDPS Act.
In view of aforesaid, they request that the
application should be dismissed.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
After going through the order of Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi dt. 21.04.2025, it is observed that no directions were
passed to time bound the matter. Therefore, the contention that
the present matter was time bound by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi is against the record.
Further as per the facts of the case, 410 gram Heroin
was recovered from the possession of applicant/accused which is
commercial quantity, therefore, Section 37 NDPS Act is
applicable. Therefore, the applicant/accused is support to satisfy
the twin conditions as provided u/s 37 NDPS Act. Since, Ld.
counsel for the applicant/ accused has not addressed the
arguments on merits of the case, therefore, the applicant/accused
has not satisfied the said conditions.
In addition to that in Union of India Vs. Vigin K.
Varghese, SLP (Crl.) No. 7768/2025 decided on 13.11.2025 by
Supreme Court of India”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has held to the effect that sole ground of long incarceration does
not entitle the applicant/accused to be admitted to bail
particularly in cases under NDPS Act.
As per the case of applicant/accused, the allegations
against accused are serious in nature.
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
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 Mohan Gupta 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/25.02.2026
-- 4 of 4 --