Interim Order 21

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IA No. 3-25
SC No. 340-23
State Vs. Shilpi Dawar
FIR No. 287/2022
PS Crime Branch
U/sec 20/25/29 NDPS Act
24.05.2025
This is second application under section 482 BNSS for grant of
anticipatory bail moved on behalf of accused/applicant Shilpi
Dawar.
Pr: Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Neeraj Kumar Shah, Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
This is second bail application for anticipatory bail
in Sessions Court and first application was dismissed on
21.05.2025. So, I deem it appropriate to consider the reply filed
by the IO three days back and there is no need to issue notice to
IO to file reply to the present application as factual matrix of the
case would remain same.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
1.1 It is argued on behalf of accused/applicant that
present bail application is maintainable in view of judgment of
Shashi Goil & Ors. Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Crl. M. C. 1621/2013 on the basis of new facts and
circumstances. It is further submitted that co-accused Lakshay
Jaggi was arrested in the present case and thereafter on his
disclosure statement, three accused persons i.e., Pankaj Dawar
(husband of accused/applicant), Vineet Pal and Udit Marahta
were arrested and they have been granted regular and default
FIR No. 87/2022
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Shilpi Dawar
1/7
-- 1 of 7 --
bail. It is further submitted that accused/applicant is a housewife
and has no role in the present case and she has no knowledge of
any kind of transaction as alleged by prosecution. It is further
submitted that it is alleged against accused/applicant that she has
multiple online transaction in her account with co-accused,
however, accused/applicant has no knowledge about the same as
mobile number of husband of accused/applicant is registered
with the said account. It is further submitted that phone of
husband of accused/applicant has already been seized by the
police three years back and accused/applicant has no knowledge
about the online transactions. It is further submitted that alleged
transaction was in the knowledge of IO, however, no notice was
issued to the accused/applicant for the past three years.
1.2 It is further submitted that husband of
accused/applicant has filed a complaint at Additional
Commissioner of Police Crime Branch against the investigating
agency on 07.05.2025 and on 08.05.2025, IO issued a notice
against the accused/applicant which is a counter blast of the said
complaint. It is further submitted that husband of
accused/applicant met IO on 08.05.2025 and handed over the
medical document of accused/applicant and thereafter, IO
directed husband of accused/applicant to make sure that
application would join the investigation as soon as possible when
her health improves. It is further submitted that accused/applicant
is apprehending her arrest as investigating agency is trying to
link with the accused/applicant with the alleged online
transaction. It is further submitted that accused/applicant is ready
to join the investigation in presence of her counsel with time
bound manner during office hours and undertakes to extend full
FIR No. 87/2022
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Shilpi Dawar
2/7
-- 2 of 7 --
co-operation to the investigating agency. Hence, it is prayed that
anticipatory bail may be granted to accused/applicant as she is
ready to abide with any condition imposed by the court.
1.3 Ld. Counsel has relied upon Md. Irshad Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi Bail Application No. 994/2022, Amit Ranjan Vs.
NCB, Delhi Bail Application No. 189/2020, Deepak Nagiyan Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi), Bail application No. 1716/2023, Vijay
Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Crl. No. 1266/2023, Ram Singh @
Rammu @ Ramu Siteka Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-54786-
2021, Sanjay Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Misc. Crl.
Case No. 9306/2023, Shantilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Misc. Crl. Case No. 42056/2023, Navendu Babbar Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/1267/2020 to fortify his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
2.1 Per contra, ld. Addl. PP for the State has vehemently
opposed the bail application stating that present case was
registered regarding recovery of 54 small glass bottles placed in a
special case and 52 gram ganja from accused Lakshay Jaggi.
Upon weighing and testing of bottles, it was found 12 grams
THC. During interrogation accused Lakshay Jaggi disclosed that
he used to procure THC & OG from Pankaj Dawar (husband of
accused/applicant). During interrogation, accused Pankaj Dawar,
Udit Marahata @ Ghonty and Vineet Pal were arrested.
2.2 It is submitted that during investigation, statement of
IDBI account No. 0248104000158183 maintained by
accused/applicant Shilpi Dawar was obtained and analyzing the
same, it was found that total amount of Rs. 4,68,798/- was
transferred by accused Lakshay Jaggi in the said account. It is
FIR No. 87/2022
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Shilpi Dawar
3/7
-- 3 of 7 --
further submitted that accused Vineet Pal Singh also transferred
Rs. 11,13,504/- in the account of accused/applicant.
2.3 It is further submitted that notices under section 67
NDPS Act have been served upon the accused/applicant twice,
however, she has not joined the investigation till date. It is further
submitted that after dismissal of first anticipatory bail application
vide order dated 21.05.2025, raid was conducted at the house of
accused/applicant on 22.05.2025, however, she was found
absconding and evaded her presence. It is further submitted that
there is no change of circumstance since 21.05.2025 and
application is devoid of any merit and same may be dismissed
accordingly as custodial interrogation of accused/applicant is
required for recovery of mobile phone which is linked with the
said account which is registered in the name of husband of
accused/applicant as same was not recovered at the time of arrest
of Pankaj Dawar i.e., husband of accused. Hence, it is prayed that
anticipatory bail application may be dismissed accordingly.
Submissions heard. Record perused. I have also
gone through the judgments/orders relied upon by ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
3.1 Allegations against the accused/applicant are serious
in nature. Rs. 4,68,798/- and Rs. 11,13,504/- were transferred by
accused Lakshay Jaggi and accused Vineet Pal in bank account of
IDBI maintained in the name of accused/applicant. Mobile phone
linked with the account of applicant, which is registered in the
name of co-accused Pankaj Dawar is yet to be recovered as same
FIR No. 87/2022
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Shilpi Dawar
4/7
-- 4 of 7 --
was not recovered at the time of arrest of accused Pankaj Dawar.
3.2 this bail application has been filed on the pretext that
previous counsel could not place all the relevant facts before the
court and the first application for anticipatory bail was dismissed
on 21.05.2025. The new fact pleaded on behalf of
accused/applicant that on 07.05.2025 filed a complaint before
Addl. Commissioner of Police Crime Branch against
Investigating agency by husband of accused/applicant and
thereafter on 08.05.2025 notice was issued to accused/applicant
which is counterblast to that complaint. However, the argument is
misconceived as first notice was issued to accused/applicant on
01.05.2025 and the complaint dated 07.05.2025 filed by husband
of accused/applicant is apparently counter blast to that notice.
The court is also not concerned with the complaint filed by
husband of accused/applicant before Addl. DCP. At the time of
consideration of first anticipatory bail application the court has to
seen the conduct of the accused and whether custodial
interrogation of accused is required or not for proper
investigation. This court has already dealt with the facts of this
case which warrant custodial interrogation of the present accused
and I find no reason to reiterate those facts and reasons as first
anticipatory bail application was recently dismissed on
21.05.2025.
3.3 It is matter of record that after dismissal of first
anticipatory bail application on 21.05.2025, IO conducted raid at
the house of accused/applicant on 22.05.2025, however, she was
not found present at her house and evaded her presence.
Thereafter, on 23.05.2025, IO moved an application for issuance
of NBWs against accused/applicant and same was allowed by the
FIR No. 87/2022
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Shilpi Dawar
5/7
-- 5 of 7 --
court. Moreover, considering the recent filing successive bail
application on behalf of accused person, Hon’ble Delhi High
Court deliberated over this issue in case titled as Neeraj Kumar
Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Application No. 749/2025
decided on 18.03.2025, and observed as under:
“Para7. The practice of filing the successive bail applications
in short interval of time, thus, without there being a change
in circumstance is deprecated. Even though it is contended
that the grounds raised in preferring the present application
were not agitated on an earlier occasion, the present case is
one where the applicant’s bail applications have been
adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on two
occasions on merits. It is pertinent to note that the present
application is fourth bail application preferred by the
applicant within a span of one year. The applicant has not
cited any reason as to why such grounds as the ones sought
to be raised could not be agitated on previous occasions.
While it is the right of the accused to prefer successive bail
applications when there is a change in circumstance, it
cannot be denied that if an accused is allowed to persistently
file repeated applications merely on the contention that he
was unable to take some grounds previously, the same would
only lead to filing of endless applications unless a favorable
order is received.”
3.4 In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav 2005 SC 91, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an
accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of
bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail application has a
duty to consider the reasons or grounds on which the earlier bail
applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a
duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to
take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application.
3.5 Considering the observation of Hon’ble High Court
in Neeraj Kumar’s case (discussed supra), I am not inclined to
exercise the discretion in favour of the accused. Moreover, there
is no change of circumstance after dismissal of first application
FIR No. 87/2022
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Shilpi Dawar
6/7
-- 6 of 7 --
for grant of anticipatory bail on 21.05.2025.
3.6 The judgments relied upon Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant are 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.
3.7 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.
3.8 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out to
grant anticipatory bail to accused/applicant Shilpi Dawar.
Therefore, the application moved on behalf of the
accused/applicant Shilpi Dawar stands dismissed.
Copy of this order be given dasti as prayed for.
Dhirendra Rana
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
24.05.2025
FIR No. 87/2022
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Shilpi Dawar
7/7
-- 7 of 7 --