Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: State Vs. Akash Kumar Digal Page 1 of 6
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS, EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Bail Appl. IA 01/2026
SC No. 780/2026
State Vs. Akash Kumar Digal
FIR No. 74/2026
PS: Kalyanpuri
U/s 20/21/25/29 NDPS Act
15.09.2026
This is third application u/s 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail
filed on behalf of accused namely Akash Kumar Digal.
Present: Sh. Ramesh Bajiya, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
state.
Sh. Ankush Singh, Sh. Anmol Mangat & Sh. Binay
Singh, Counsel for the accused.
IO/ASI Amit Kumar is present.
1. Reply of the present application has been filed.
2. I have heard the arguments on the bail application advanced
by Learned Addl. PP for the State, Learned counsels for the accused
and perused the record.
3. During the course of arguments, counsel for the accused
submitted that present accused Akash Kumar Digal has been falsely
implicated in the present case and he is in judicial custody since
26.03.2026. It is case of the prosecution that initially two accused
persons namely Firoz and Akbar were apprehended alongwith scooty
and they were found in possession of 21.730kg of ganja. Thereafter,
accused Firoz made a disclosure statement with this effect that he
procured the said contraband from the present accused namely Akash
-- 1 of 6 --
State Vs. Akash Kumar Digal Page 2 of 6
Kumar Digal. It is further submitted that no contraband has been
recovered from the possession of the present accused. However,
prosecution has relied upon the financial transactions and CDR. It is
further submitted that two transactions pertain to year 2025 and two
transactions pertain to year 2026 i.e. 19.01.2026 and 09.02.2026
which are prior to the arrest of the present accused. It is further
submitted that bail application of the present accused has also been
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2026 when the
chargesheet was not filed but now chargesheet has been filed,
therefore, now no purpose would be served to detain the accused
behind the bars. It is prayed that present accused should be released
on bail.
4. On the contra, Learned Addl. PP for the State has opposed the
bail application stating that present accused is the source person from
whom co-accused persons namely Firoz and Akbar procured the
21.730kg of ganja which is a commercial quantity. It concedes by
Learned Addl. PP for the State that no contraband has been recovered
from the possession of the present accused. It is submitted that present
accused has been connected with the crime on the basis of financial
transactions as well as CDR. It is further submitted that there were
financial transactions between the present accused and co-accused
Firoz. In the year 2025 there were two transactions of Rs. 23,000/- &
Rs. 3,500/-. Further, there were two transactions of Rs. 29,999/- on
19.01.2026 & 19,500/- on 09.02.2026 i.e. prior to the arrest of
accused persons. It is conceded that chargesheet has also been filed
-- 2 of 6 --
State Vs. Akash Kumar Digal Page 3 of 6
in the present case. It is prayed that present accused should not be
released on bail.
5. After having gone through the submissions of both the parties
and perusal of the record, I find that it is case of prosecution that
present accused being a source person of the narcotics drugs was
having criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons regarding
distribution of said contraband, therefore, the said accused was in
regular touch with the co-accused Firoz. It is to be noted here that
neither any contraband was recovered from the possession of present
accused nor at his instance. The prosecution, in order to connect the
present accused with the criminal conspiracy has relied upon CDR
showing twenty two phone calls between the present applicant and
co-accused Firoz from 02.08.2025 to 15.02.2026.
5.1 In case titled as
Vinay Dua Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
“22. Merely because the applicants were in regular touch
with the co-accused, the same is not sufficient to establish
the offence against the applicants. A coordinate bench of
this court, in case of Dalip Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi),
2019 SCC Online 6494 had observed as under:-
“11. On perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that there
are two major missing links in the case of the prosecution.
There is no link established by the prosecution between the
petitioner with the alleged supplier Manoj. Further the
entire case of the prosecution, in so far as petitioner is
concerned is circumstantial i.e. based solely on disclosure
-- 3 of 6 --
State Vs. Akash Kumar Digal Page 4 of 6
statement of a co-accused which is per se not admissible
without there being any corroboration. Prosecution has not
been able to establish any connection between the subject
offence and the bank accounts, where the petitioner is
alleged to have been depositing money or with the holders
of those accounts. Merely because the petitioner has been
having telephonic conversation with the co-accused, would
not be sufficient to hold that petitioner is guilty of the
subject offence. There is no recovery made from the
petitioner.
12. I am of the view that requirement of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are satisfied. In so far as the petitioner is
concerned, there are reasonable grounds to believe that
petitioner is not guilty of the said offence."
5.2 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotic Control Bureau (Supra)
has held in para no. 15 of the said judgment that “we may clarify that
at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of
section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that
the accused person is not guilty. The court is also not expected to
weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused
has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire
exercise that the court is expected to undertake at this stage is for
the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on
availability of the reasonable ground for believing that accused is not
guilty of the offence that he has been charged with and he is unlikely
to commit an offence under the Act while on bail”.
-- 4 of 6 --
State Vs. Akash Kumar Digal Page 5 of 6
5.3 In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, it is
apparent that merely because the petitioner/accused has been having
telephonic conversation (twenty two calls between them as per CDR)
with the co-accused would not be sufficient to hold that there was
substantive corroboration in the present case. Further, prosecution has
relied upon four financial transactions i.e. Rs. 23,000/-, Rs. 3500/-,
Rs. 29,999/- & Rs. 19,500/- all dated 29.06.2025, 01.07.2025,
19.01.2026 & 09.02.2026 respectively for showing criminal
conspiracy between the accused persons. The aforesaid financial
transactions itself is not
per se sufficient to establish complicity. Even
chargesheet has also been filed in the present case. Further, there is
no material on record suggesting that accused is previously involved
in any other criminal case. In view of the above, this court is of the
opinion that the embargo of section 37 of the NDPS Act does not
come in the way of granting bail to the accused.
5.4 With these observations, present accused Akash Kumar Digal
is admitted on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount and subject to the
following conditions:-
(i) That the applicant/accused will not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence, in any
manner whatsoever.
(ii) That the applicant/accused will not leave the country
without prior permission of the court and shall appear before
the Court as and when directed.
(iii) that the applicant/accused shall keep the Court/IO
informed about his latest address, in case there is any change
-- 5 of 6 --
State Vs. Akash Kumar Digal Page 6 of 6
and also provide his mobile number which must be switched at
on all time.
(iv) that the said sureties will furnish their residential address
proof like Aadhar card, Voter-Id card and also furnish the
documents like bank account, property documents, etc., for
showing their financial solvency.
6. It is clarified that nothing stated in this order should be
considered as observation on the merits of the case.
7. Copy of this order be given
dasti, as prayed.
(R.L. Meena)
Special Judge, NDPS,
East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
15.09.2026
-- 6 of 6 --