Interim Order 34

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 4
Regular Bail Application
SC 495/2023
STATE Vs. Mohan Gupta
FIR NO. 54/2023
PS Crime Branch
U/s 21(c) & 29 NDPS Act
26.05.2026
This is 4th bail application seeking grant of regular bail to the
applicant/ accused namely Mohan Gupta.
Present: 	Sh. K. P. Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Sh. Naveen Panwar and Ms. Shivani
Sharma (through VC), Ld. Counsels for the applicant/accused.
1. 	Reply to bail application is already filed. Copy already supplied.
Arguments in respect of the instant application were heard on 25.05.2026.
2. 	In view of the fact that the instant application is the 4th 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. Counsels for the
accused/applicant as to the change of circumstances, that have taken place
since the dismissal of the 3rd bail application of the accused/applicant and/or
any new grounds, which have since arisen and agitated in the instant bail
application.
3. 	In reply, Ld. Counsels for the accused/applicant have drawn the
attention of the Court to the orders dated 13.03.2026 and 22.04.2026 passed
by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the bail application and criminal
miscellaneous application(s), filed by the accused/applicant before Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi and submitted that liberty was granted to the
accused/applicant to file a fresh bail application once the order on charge was
-- 1 of 4 --
Page 2 of 4
pronounced by the trial court. They submit that vide order dated 18.05.2026,
charges in respect of offence punishable under section 21(c) NDPS Act have
been directed to be framed against the accused/applicant and therefore, after
pronouncement of the said order, the instant bail application has been filed on
behalf of the accused/applicant.
4. 	During the course of submissions, attention was also drawn to the
copy of order dated 14.02.2025, passed by Central Government vide which
the detention of applicant/accused has been lately revoked by Central
Government u/s 3(1) of PIT NDPS Act, 1988. It was submitted on behalf of
accused/applicant 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. It was argued on behalf of the accused/applicant that the trial of the
subject FIR would take considerable time, and if the accused were kept in
custody till the conclusion of the trial, their right to a speedy trial guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would be infringed.
5. 	Placing reliance on the recent Judgement passed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in case titled as “Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National
Investigation Agency, 2026 SCC Online SC 881 dated 18.05.2026”, it has
been vociferously urged given the applicant has already undergone over three
years of pre-trial detention, he is entitled to bail, and that the rigid embargo of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act must yield to his right to liberty.
6. 	On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has opposed the
instant 4th bail application by submitting that the accused has failed to show
any change of circumstances, since the dismissal of the earlier bail application
and therefore, the instant bail application is required to be dismissed at the
very threshold. At the same time, it was submitted 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
-- 2 of 4 --
Page 3 of 4
NDPS Act and given the criminal antecedents of the accused/applicant, the
accused/applicant has failed to satisfy the said twin conditions. In view of
aforesaid, prayer was made for dismissal of the instant bail application.
7. 	Submissions considered. Record perused.
8. 	Perusal of record reveals that 410 grams of Heroin was allegedly
recovered from the possession of applicant/accused, which is commercial
quantity, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable to the
facts of the subject FIR qua the accused/applicant. Therefore, unless the
applicant/accused is able to satisfy the twin conditions as provided u/s 37
NDPS Act, he cannot be enlarged on bail.
9. 	It is pertinent to mention here that in cases, titled as “State of
Punjab Vs. Sukhvinder Singh @ Gora, SLP (Crl.) No. 5020/2026 decided on
24.04.2026 and Union of India Vs. Vigin K. Varghese, SLP (Crl.) No.
7768/2025 decided on 13.11.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
categorically held and reiterated that in cases involving recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, unless the accused
satisfies the twin conditions, as provided under section 37 of NDPS Act, he
cannot be released on bail. It has been categorically laid down that the right of
speedy trial, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the context of
special statute such as NDPS Act dealing with commercial quantity, has to be
read alongside, and not in displacement of, the mandate of section 37 of NDPS
Act. Thus, it is no longer res integra that the mere fact of prolonged
incarceration and delayed trial proceedings will not dilute the restrictions
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, especially in cases involving the recovery
of a commercial quantity from habitual offenders.
10. Furthermore, in the facts of the instant case, it is pertinent to
mention that the alleged commercial quantity of contraband was recovered
from the possession of the accused while he was on bail in another FIR
-- 3 of 4 --
Page 4 of 4
registered under the NDPS Act. Therefore, in light of the criminal antecedents
of the accused/applicant—specifically his involvement in multiple FIRs under
the NDPS Act—it cannot be asserted that he is unlikely to commit a similar
offence or evade the process of law if released on bail. Consequently, the
statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act continues to operate
against the grant of bail in this case.
11. Before concluding, I must note that during the arguments, the
Learned counsels for the accused/applicant drew my attention to numerous
bail orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in cases registered under the NDPS Act. On this basis, it was
pleaded that the accused/applicant be granted bail in the subject FIR. I have
reviewed the said orders passed by the Hon’ble Constitutional Courts.
However, the law laid down in the precedents relied upon by the Learned
Counsels for the applicant/accused was based on the peculiar facts and
circumstances of those specific cases, and therefore, has no application to the
facts of the subject FIR.
12. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the applicant/ accused
Mohan Gupta stands dismissed.
13. 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.
14. 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/26.05.2026
-- 4 of 4 --