Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Aman Sehal Vs. State Page 1 of 6
N THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS, EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Bail Appl. 1002/2026
Aman Sehal Vs. State
PS : Crime Branch East Delhi
FIR No. 182/2026
U/S 20/25/29 of NDPS Act
22.08.2026
This is an application under section 483 of BNSS for grant of interim
bail for the period of 60 days filed on behalf of applicant/accused
namely Aman Sehal.
Present: Sh. Ramesh Bajiya, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
state.
Sh. Aditya Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/
accused.
IO/SI Avdhesh is present.
1. Reply of the present application has been filed.
2. I have heard the arguments on interim bail advanced by
Learned Addl. PP for the State, Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Learned
counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
3. During the course of arguments, counsel for the applicant/
accused submitted that applicant/ accused Aman Sehal has been
falsely implicated in the present case and he is in judicial custody
since 14.07.2026. It is further submitted that present application has
been filed on the medical ground of the applicant as he was diagnosed
with Testicular Seminoma (Germ Cell Tumor / Testicular Cancer) in
the left testis. It is further submitted that the left inguinal
orchidectomy of the accused was conducted on 29th February, 2024
the same was removed and the applicant is still under the observations
-- 1 of 6 --
Aman Sehal Vs. State Page 2 of 6
of the medical experts. Counsel for the applicant/accused has drawn
the attention of the court on various medical documents of the
applicant regarding his Cancer treatment from various hospitals,
particularly, Ganesh Diagnostic & Imaging Centre Pvt. Ltd, Delhi
State Cancer Institute (East) Dilshad Garden, Rajiv Gandhi Super
Specialty Hospital, Twacha Clinic etc. It is further submitted that
applicant is required for surveillance of medical experts, proper diet,
proper environment for recovery. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that
applicant/accused should be given interim bail for the period of 60
days on the basis of humanitarian ground/ medical ground. Counsel
for the applicant/ accused in support of his arguments has also relied
upon following citations:-
(a) Varadaiah Vs. The State of Karnataka decided by Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka on 29th June, 2021.
(b) Tara Bhutani Vs. State NCT of Delhi Bail, Appl. N.
4350/2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
(c) Manoj Kumar Das Through Pairokar Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi Bail Appln. 1192/2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.
4. On the contra, Learned Addl. PP for the State has opposed the
bail application stating that present case pertains to the recovery of
1336 gram of charas (commercial quantity) from the accused
Guruvishal Singh who was transporting the contraband from
Himachal Pradesh to Delhi NCR for delivery to the receivers. During
the investigation, accused Aman Sehal (present applicant), Yadu
-- 2 of 6 --
Aman Sehal Vs. State Page 3 of 6
Yadav and Hardik Kalra were identified as receiver of the recovered
contraband. Thereafter, they were apprehended on 13.07.2026 at the
instance of accused Guruvishal Singh and subsequently, arrested on
14.07.2026 based on technical, financial and other corroborative
material collected during investigation.
4.1 It was also revealed during the investigation that present
applicant and co-accused Yadu Yadav also visited to Himachal
Pradesh and met with a person namely Raju (co-accused) and they
selected the charas and also paid a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- to the said
Raju. Applicant’s mobile number contained the number of Raju @ M
Mama with whatsapp connectivity. CDR/ Whatsapp analysis has
further revealed connectivity between the said source number and
present applicant, Yadu Yadav and Hardik. The said source number is
presently switched off and its SDR reflects registration in the name
of Raj Kumar R/o Kullu Himachal Pradesh which is being verified.
4.2 It is further submitted that during police custody remand in
July 2026 accused Yadu Yadav and present applicant identified the
place at Malana at Himachal Pradesh where they met said Raju and
selected the charas besides, identifying the hotel they had stayed.
Relevant record of hotel New Law Plaza and Alpin Guest House
including guest register/ KYC records were obtained and taken on
record corroborating their presence in Himachal Pradesh during
relevant period of procuring charas.
4.3 It is further submitted that investigation further revealed that
applicant had financially participated in the procurement of his
share of the contraband and was to receive his share at Rani Bagh
Delhi.
-- 3 of 6 --
Aman Sehal Vs. State Page 4 of 6
4.4 It is further submitted that the technical evidence also
establish inter-se communication amongst present applicant Yadu,
Hardik and Guruvishal during the relevant period in connection with
procurement, transportation and delivery of the recovered
contraband/ charas. It is further submitted that co-accused persons are
yet to be arrested and money trail between the accused persons is
being analysed.
4.5 It is further submitted by Learned Addl. PP for the State that
IO went to the hospitals i.e. Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty and Delhi
State Cancer Institute for verification of medical documents/disease
of the applicant. The said hospital has also given a report stating that
present applicant was under treatment at the Institute since
18.03.2024 for Testicular Seminoma/ Germ Cell Tumour of the left
testis and has undergone the chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
However, the latest medical opinion of the Institute specifically
records that “No immediate intervention required” and the patient is
required to be followed up regularly/ SOS.
4.6 It is further submitted that in view of the said medical report
of the present applicant, it is apparent that competent Government
cancer institute has not certified any immediate medical emergency
or any treatment which cannot be provided during custody.
4.7 It is further submitted that keeping in view the seriousness of
the offence, medical report of the accused and the fact that the case is
at the initial stage of the investigation, therefore, interim bail should
not be granted to the present applicant/ accused.
5. Before dealing the arguments of both the parties regarding
interim bail of accused, it is relevant to refer the case law on the
-- 4 of 6 --
Aman Sehal Vs. State Page 5 of 6
interim bail i.e. Cr. Ref.1/2015 titled as 'Athar Pervez Vs. State'
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein it is held as
under :
“ The expression “interim' bail is not defined in the Code.
It is an innovation by legal neologism which has gained
acceptance and recognition. The terms, 'interim” bail /
“interim” suspension of sentence, have been used and
accepted as part of legal vocabulary and are well known
expression. The said terms are used in contradistinction and
to distinguish release on regular bail during pendency of
trial or appeal till final adjudication. Applications for
“interim” suspension or bail are primarily moved and
prayed for, when the accused or convict is not entitled to or
cannot be granted regular bail or suspension of sentence, or
the application for grant of regular bail is pending
consideration and is yet to be decided. “Interim” bail
entailing temporary release can be granted under
compelling circumstances and grounds, even when regular
bail would not be justified. Intolerable grief and suffering
in the given facts, may justify temporary release, even
when regular bail is not warranted. Such situations are not
difficult to recount, though making a catalog would be an
unnecessary exercise.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has further observed in Para-19 of
the said case that by it very nature, interim bail is a temporarily
liberation for a fix period of time. It is a bail on pro-tem basis.
[ See Sunil Fulchand Shah (Supra) and Mukesh Kishanpuria
( Supra)]. “Interim” bail should not and cannot be a substitute
and an alternative for regular bail. It should be granted for
minimal time and deservedly necessary.
6. Bare perusal of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi, it is apparent that interim bail should be given in appropriate
cases, where there is compelling circumstances or intolerable grief
-- 5 of 6 --
Aman Sehal Vs. State Page 6 of 6
and suffering. In the present case, interim bail for the accused is
sought only on the ground of medical treatment of cancer. It is to be
noted here that IO has filed the medical report of the present applicant
dated 19.08.2026 particularly from the Delhi State Cancer Institute.
In the said report, it is clearly mentioned that present applicant was
on regular monthly follow-up to 20.04.2025 and subsequently
Hepatitis C was reactive on 19.06.2025 for which appropriate
management was done accordingly 27.09.2025. Further, the said
report also states that “no immediate intervention required”.
However, patient is required to be followed up regularly/ SOS.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly,
medical report of the applicant wherein it is clearly mentioned that
no immediate intervention is required. Accordingly, at this stage, I am
not inclined to grant the interim bail to the present accused, therefore,
the present application is dismissed.
8. Before parting with this order, it is to be noted here that I have
also gone through the citations referred by counsel for the applicant
but same are not applicable upon the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
9. It is clarified that nothing stated in this order should be
considered as observation on the merits of the case.
10. Copy of this order be given
dasti, as prayed.
(R.L. Meena)
Special Judge, NDPS,
East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
22.08.2026
-- 6 of 6 --