Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IA No. 2/26
SC No. 262/26
State Vs. Villima
FIR No. 98/26
U/s 21 NDPS Act
PS R.K. Puram
08.09.2026
This is an application u/s. 483 BNSS moved on behalf of
accused / applicant for grant of regular bail.
Present: Dr. S.K. Bishnoi, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Bharat Kashyap, Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant.
IO SI Manish.
Arguments heard.
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused/ applicant that
the accused/ applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and
is in JC since 13.05.2026. It is submitted that no bail application of
accused/ applicant is pending before Hon’ble Delhi High Court or
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is submitted that there is nothing to
connect with accused/applicant with the offence in question. It is
submitted that procedural safeguards were not followed by the police. It
is submitted that co-accused Amit @ Sonu was granted anticipatory bail.
It is submitted that the accused / applicant is woman of clean antecedents.
It is submitted that accused / applicant has reasponsibility of taking care
of her three minor children. It is submitted that accused / applicant is a
permanent resident of Delhi and as such is not a flight risk. It is submitted
that the investigation qua the accused / applicant has been completed and
no purpose shall be served by keeping her behind the bars any more. It is
prayed that application be allowed.
-- 1 of 5 --
Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has strongly opposed
the bail application citing the nature of allegations and gravity of the
offence. It is submitted that there are clinching evidences against the
accused / applicant and he may abscond, if released on bail. It is prayed
that the application be dismissed.
Considered.
At the outset, it is not disputed that the statutory embargo
contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted since the quantity
i.e. 35 gms of Heroine stated to have been recovered from accused/
applicant is covered under ‘intermediary’ quantity. The application is,
therefore, required to be considered on the settled principles governing
grant of bail under the general criminal law.
At the stage of consideration of bail, the Court is not
expected to undertake a detailed examination or meticulous appreciation
of evidence as would be required during trial. Nevertheless, the Court is
required to assess,
prima facie, the nature and gravity of accusations, the
role attributed to the accused, the severity of punishment in the event of
conviction, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing
witnesses, the stage of investigation/trial, and the larger interests of
society and administration of justice.
As per the reply filed by the IO, accused/applicant was found
having 31 small polythene packets containing smack weighing 35 gms in
total, including the weight of polythene packets which were recovered
from her as per due procedure. Further that, at her instance, one co-
accused Aman @ Bouncer was arrested and from whom 7 gms of smack
was recovered.
-- 2 of 5 --
The recovered contraband i.e. heroin / smack is stated to be a
highly addictive class A Narcotic, the quantity also being quite above the
one that can be stated to be a small quantity. I am in consonance with the
submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that same cannot be
merely for personal consumption but in all probability, for peddling, more
so when the same were kept in form of small polythene packet i.e.
‘knots’.
The allegations in the present matter are serious in nature and
cannot be said to be trivial at this stage. The record placed before the
Court prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant in the
commission of the alleged offence. The Court is conscious of the
principle that liberty of an individual is of paramount importance;
however, such liberty is required to be balanced with the nature of
accusations, societal interest, and the requirement of ensuring a fair and
unhindered investigation.
The possibility of the accused / applicant indulging in similar
offences cannot be ruled out. More so, when co-accused Aman @
Bouncer was arrested on basis of her disclosure statement and from
whom, the contraband was also recovered. The Court is further of the
opinion that the material presently available on record does not persuade
this Court to hold that the applicant deserves the discretionary relief of
bail at this stage.
Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant has also contended
that the proceedings were neither videographed nor photographed and
that no independent public witness was joined at the time of recovery.
The said circumstances, by themselves, do not constitute sufficient
ground for grant of bail. The absence of videography or photography and
-- 3 of 5 --
non-association of an independent witness do not, at this stage, displace
the prima facie case arising from the recovery effected from the applicant.
The testimony of police officials cannot be disregarded merely on the
ground that they are police officials, and their statements are required to
be appreciated on their own merits. The evidentiary significance of these
circumstances can appropriately be assessed during trial after the
prosecution evidence is led and tested by way of cross-examination. At
the stage of bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous
appreciation of the evidence or to return a finding on the credibility of the
recovery proceedings. Accordingly, the said contentions, in the facts of
the present case, do not persuade this Court to grant bail.
The alleged procedural irregularities in compliance with Section 52A of
the NDPS Act, including delay in drawing or forwarding the samples to the
FSL, do not, by themselves, furnish reasonable grounds for believing that
the applicant is not guilty of the offence. In view of
NCB v. Kashif (2024)
11 SCC 372, such lapses ordinarily constitute procedural irregularities and
cannot, by themselves, entitle an accused to bail.
Though learned counsel for the applicant has argued that
prolonged incarceration should be avoided and that bail is the rule while
jail is an exception, there can be no dispute regarding the settled
proposition of law. However, the said principle cannot be applied in a
mechanical manner divorced from the facts and circumstances of each
case. The gravity of allegations, the quantity of the contraband recovered
and the stage of proceedings are equally relevant considerations while
adjudicating an application seeking grant of bail.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the
nature and seriousness of allegations, the role attributed to the applicant,
-- 4 of 5 --
the material collected during investigation, and the stage of proceedings,
this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.
Needless to observe, nothing stated herein shall tantamount
to an expression on the merits of the case.
Dasti to all concerned.
(Bhupinder Singh)
Spl. Exclusive Court
Spl. Judge NDPS-10, RACC,
New Delhi/08.09.2026
-- 5 of 5 --