Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IA 02/2026
SC No.19/2026
PS Crime Branch
FIR 229/2025
State Vs. Sahidul
16.05.2026
This is an application under Section 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail
moved on behalf of accused/applicant Sahidul @ Babu Khan.
Present: Sh. Suraj Rathi, Ld. Special PP for the State through VC.
Sh. Akash Kumar, Counsel for applicant/accused.
1. Present bail application is filed by the applicant in the
instant FIR No.229/2025, registered at PS Crime Branch under Section
21/25/29 NDPS Act.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
2. It is argued on behalf of accused/applicant that he is the
sole bread earner in his family, falsely implicated in this case and he has
sent to JC on 11.09.2025 and since then, he is behind bars. It is further
argued that investigation is complete as charge sheet has been filed. It is
further argued that there are no CCTV Footage filed in the present case
despite of the fact that CCTV camares were installed in the area where
the alleged raid was conducted, which creates serious doubts over the
story of the prosecution. It is further argued that no such compliance
under Section 42 NDPS Act was done by the Police Officers and
prosecution has failed to cite any independent witness despite of highly
populated area where the applicant/accused was apprehended. It is
further argued that the whole story of the prosecution is false and is only
a counter blast to the refusal of illegal demand of extortion made by the
police officials. It is further argued that the concession of bail should be
-- 1 of 3 --
granted to the applicant as conclusion of trial will take significant time.
It is prayed that accused/applicant should be released on bail as he is
ready to abide with any condition imposed by the court.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
3. Per contra, Ld. Special PP for the State has vehemently
opposed the bail application stating that co-accused Inzamam was
arrested in the present matter with the recovery of 1266 Smack/Heroin
and on his disclosure, the applicant/accused was arrested with the
recovery of contraband i.e. 271 gram of heroin. It is further argued that
applicant is having criminal antecedent being involved in another case
of similar in nature. It is further argued that since there is involvement of
commercial quantity of the contraband from the applicant/accused along
with co-accused, therefore, bar of Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted in
this matter, hence, bail should not be granted to the applicant. It is further
argued that the entire proceeding has been videographed by the police
officials. It is further submitted that accused/applicant is involved in drug
trafficking. The allegations against the accused/applicant are serious in
nature and there is every likelihood that accused/applicant may commit
further offence of similar nature, if he be released on bail.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
5. Allegations against accused/applicant are serious in nature
as applicant was arrested with the contraband i.e. 271 gram of heroin,
which was recovered on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, who
was also arrested with 1266 gram of heroin, on the basis of a secret
information received by the IO. Since, it is an admitted position that
-- 2 of 3 --
commercial quantity of the contraband is alleged to have been recovered
from the possession of the accused/applicant along with other co-
accused, therefore, bar of Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted in this
matter. However, no arguments were addressed qua twin test laid down
under Section 37 NDPS Act and in the absence of any substantial
arguments on Section 37 NDPS Act, the present application cannot be
allowed. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument raised by the
Counsel for the applicant. Hence, I do not find any reason to exercise
discretion in favour of accused/applicant.
6. The judgment/order relied upon Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant is not applicable to the present case being
distinguishable on facts and moreover, granting bail is a discretion which
is to be exercised by the Court as per facts and circumstance of each
case.
6.1 In Mansab Ali Vs. Irsan and Anr. 2003 SC 707, it has been
held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that since the jurisdiction is
discretionary, it is required to be exercised with great care and caution
by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of
the society in general.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the considered view that no ground is made out for grant of bail to
accused/applicant Sahidul @ Babu Khan. Therefore, the application
moved on behalf of the accused/applicant Sahidul @ Babu Khan stands
dismissed.
8. Nothing in this order shall tantamount to an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case during trial.
-- 3 of 3 --