Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: -1-
Regular Bail Application
FIR no. 65/2023
State Vs. Tufan Singh @ Dale Singh
PS Crime Branch
U/s 21/25/29 NDPS Act
14.11.2025
This is an application U/s 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking
grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused.
Present: Mr. Prakhar Kumar Londhe (physically), Ld. Proxy
Counsel for Ld. Spl. PP Mr. R.S. Kundu.
Mr. Amit Gupta, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
Deputed ASI Om Prakash in person on behalf of IO
ASI Sanjay.
Ld. Proxy Counsel for Ld. Spl. PP for State seeks an
passover stating that the Ld. Spl. PP for State is appearing before
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for arguing in some other
matter.
In view of aforesaid, the matter is pass over for
12.00 noon.
(Virender Singh)
Special Judge, NDPS,
Central,THC, Delhi/14.11.2025
At 12.30 PM
Present: Mr. R.S. Kundu, Ld. Spl. PP for State (through VC).
Mr. Amit Gupta, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ accused submits that
the applicant/ accused has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He further submits that initially co-accused Zahid was
apprehended on 12.03.2023 and allegedly 500 gram Heroin was
recovered from his possession. Thereafter, 500 gram plus 4 Kg
Heroin was further recovered from the address of co-accused
Zahid at his instance i.e. Gali No. 16-A, near Mother Public
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
School, Vijay Park, Mauj Pur, Delhi.
He further submits that thereafter on the disclosure
statement of accused Zahid, accused Akash, Rahul, Neha and
applicant/accused were apprehended. He further argue that
nothing has been recovered from the possession or at the instance
of applicant/accused. He further submits that allegedly, the
applicant/accused has been shown as source of recovered Heroin.
According to him, it is case of police that Sandhya i.e. the friend
of co-accused Zahid had transferred about Rs. 2,25,000/- in the
account of applicant/accused. According to him, the relatives of
Sandhya are in the business of selling cloths on footpath and the
applicant/accused is also doing the same business and he supplies
cloths as per requirement from Delhi as well as from Gujarat.
According to him, the said payment was made by Sandhya for
the cloths supplied to her relatives. He further submits that the
date of incident is 12.03.2023 but the said amount as mentioned
in the reply was deposited in the account of applicant/accused in
October 2022 i.e. the way back from date of present offence. He
further argues that as per prosecution, the cost itself of recovered
Heroin is in crores and the applicant/accused has only deposited
a meager amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-. Thus according to him, the
said payment cannot be payment of Herion, recovered from
accused Zahid.
He further argues that there is nothing incriminating
against the applicant/accused except alleged disclosure statement
and CDR. According to him, the CDR itself is not admissible to
make the applicant/accused as culprit. He further submits that the
investigation is also complete and the charge-sheet has already
been filed. He further submits that the applicant/accused is not
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
involved in any other case and the co-accused Rahul and Neha
have already been admitted to bail. Therefore, he requests to
admit the applicant/accused on bail.
Per contra, Ld. Spl. PP for the state as well as IO
(by way of reply) have vehemently opposed the bail application
stating that commercial quantity of Heroin was recovered during
the investigation of this case, therefore, Section 37 NDPS Act is
applicable. Ld. Spl. PP for State further argues that there is CDR
and whatsapp connectivity between applicant/accused with co-
accused Zahid, his friend Sandhya and co-accused Dulha and
there is also many trail.
He further argues that the applicant/accused was
deliberately absconding and evading his arrest, therefore,
proceedings U/s 82 Cr.PC were initiated against him returnable
on 30.04.2024.
He further argues that commercial quantity of Ganja
was recovered and as per Section 29 NDPS Act, the
applicant/accused was connected with other co-accused persons
including accused Zahid, therefore, applicant/accused is
supposed to satisfy the twin conditions as provided U/s 37 NDPS
Act but the he has failed to satisfy the same.
In support of his submissions, Ld. Spl. PP for State
has relied upon the judgment titled as Union of India Vs. Vigin
K. Varghese, SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 7768/2025 decided on
13.11.2025 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
He further submits that the matter is fixed for
arguments/ framing of charge on 24.11.2025. Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused can argue on the point of charge, first as the
finding that the
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
applicant/accused has not committed any offence or he willnot
commit any offence cannot be given at this stage.
On inquiry, whether the whatsapp chat is related to
supply of Herion, Ld. Spl. PP for State submits that he will have
to verify this fact from the IO.
On his request, the matter is adjourned for
24.11.2025.
Issue notice to IO to appear in person on the date
fixed.
(Virender Singh)
Special Judge, NDPS,
Central,THC, Delhi/14.11.2025
-- 4 of 4 --