Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
IA No. 002/2026
SC No. 370/2026
PS Crime Branch,
FIR No. 342/2025
State Vs. Lekhraj @ Vicky
12.08.2026
Present: Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Hasim Alam along with Mohd. Haider Ayyoob
& Ms. Khushi A. Ayubi, Ld. counsels for applicant/
accused.
1. This is an application U/S 483 BNSS for seeking
regular bail on behalf of applicant/ accused Lekh Raj @ Vicky.
2. Briefly, the allegations against the applicant are that
on 25.11.2025, at around 11:10 am when SI Krishna along with his
team was present near B-4, Police Colony, Narela Delhi for
gathering information regarding active drug suppliers, one secret
informer met him and informed that the applicant, who is engaged
in illegal supply of ‘tramadol capsules’ and other intoxicating
medicines would come near Doodh Bazar, Narela, Delhi between
11:45 am- 12:45 p.m to deliver large quantity of illegal medicines
and if raid is conducted, he can be apprehended along with huge
quantity of contraband. SI Krishna also recorded such information
on a plain paper. At about 11:30 am, SI Krishna telephonically
informed Inspector Rakesh Duhan on his mobile phone and
conveyed the complete details of the secret information, who
further conveyed the same to the ACP Sh. Raj Kumar, who ordered
to take necessary action, as per law. The said information was
recorded by Inspector Rakesh Duhan vide DD No. 95A, PS Crime
Branch on 25.11.2025 at 12:34 pm. Thereafter, raiding team was
formed by SI Krishna and on the pointing out of secret informer
-- 1 of 9 --
2
the accused was apprehended with two bags on his motorcycle and
he was identified as ‘Lekh Raj @ Vicky’. A total of 4704 tramadol
capsules were recovered from the bags carried on the motorcycle
and from his personal search 200 grams of Opium was recovered.
Accordingly, the FIR was registered and on the disclosure
statement of the applicant another co-accused Raj Kumar was
arrested and also co-accused Mukesh Sharma on whose instance
480 capsules of tramadol were recovered.
3. Ld. counsel for the applicant argued that there is
total non compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act as the secret
information has not been recorded by SI Krishna personally and
the same has been recorded vide DD by SI Rakesh Duhan, who is
hearsay of the secret information. It is further argued that as per
Section 42 NDPS Act, it is mandatory for the empowered officer
to record the secret information in writing and forward the same to
his superior officer, which has not been complied with in the
present case and therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail on this
account. It is further argued that grounds of arrest were not
communicated to the applicant or his family members in writing
as the personal search memo does not mention about the grounds
of arrest being supplied to the applicant. It is further argued that
the quantity of contraband recovered from the applicant cannot be
considered as commercial quantity as each capsule contains 50 mg
(0.05 gram) of tramadol hydrochloride and therefore, the total
quantity of tramadol hydrochloride comes to be 235.2 grams in
4704 capsules which is an intermediate quantity and therefore, the
Bar of Section 37 NDPS Act is not applicable to the present case.
It is further argued that the applicant has no previous involvement
-- 2 of 9 --
3
and is having clean antecedents and is suffering custody since
25.11.2025. It is therefore, prayed that applicant be released on
bail.
4. Ld. counsel for the applicant relied upon the
following judgments in support of his submissions:-
a. Zakey Ahmed Vs. Sate of NCT Delhi & Anr., Bail
application No. 817/2025, 2025 DHC 5795;
b Mohan Babu Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail
application No. 1450/2025, 2026 DHC 2604;
c. Yusuf Aajam Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail application
No. 4822/2025, 2026 DHC 4966
d. Mohd. Aslam Chicko Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau
through its Director General, Bail application No.
148/2022, 2023, DHC6747;
e. Harsh Yadav Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail
Application No. 136/2025, decided on 28.02.2025 by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi;
5. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State with
the assistance of IO submitted that section 42 NDPS Act has been
adequately and substantially complied in the present case. It is
submitted that SI Krishna has himself recorded the information on
a plain paper and the same has been forwarded to his superior
officer on the same day. It is further submitted that additionally SI
Krishna has informed his superior office through telephone about
the secret information which was recorded by Inspector Rakesh
Duhan vide DD No. 95A Crime Branch dated 25.11.2025. Ld.
-- 3 of 9 --
4
Addl. PP further submitted that the while empowered officer is on
move either on patrol duty or otherwise it may not be feasible for
him to take down the information in writing and in such situation
he could take the necessary action and thereafter record the
information in writing and forthwith inform the same to his official
superior. Ld. Addl. PP relied upon the judgment Sunny @ Prem
Vs. The State NCT of Delhi 2026 DHC 777 and Karnail Singh
Vs. State of Haryana decided on 29.07.2009 in Crl. Appeal No.
36 of 2003 by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the state also submitted that written
grounds of arrest were supplied to the applicant and the signatures
of the applicants are present on the grounds of arrest memo and
also that the signatures of wife of applicant are also present on the
said memo.
7. The Ld. Addl. P P for the state also submitted 4704
capsules of tramadol were recovered from the possession of the
accused which weighed 2.548 kgs, which is commercial quantity
as per NDPS Act and the bar of Section 37 NDPS Act is applicable
with full force.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. First of all, as far as Section 42 NDPS Act is
concerned it is no doubt that it is a mandatory provision which
requires the empowered officer to record the information in
writing and to inform the same to his superior officer before
conducting any search, seizure and arrest under NDPS Act.
However, such provision is applicable only when the empowered
officer is present in the office but when the empowered officer is
-- 4 of 9 --
5
on move either on patrolling or otherwise, then it may not be
practical for him record such information there and then and in
such cases he may proceed and thereafter, record such information
and forthwith inform his superior officer. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Karnail Singh case (supra) held as follows:-
7. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did
not require literal compliance with the requirements
of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold
that the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) need not
be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as
follows :
(a) The officer on receiving the information (of the nature
referred to in Sub-section (1) of section
42) from any person had to record it in writing in the
concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his
immediate official superior, before proceeding to take
action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the
officer was not in the police station, but while he was on
the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by
mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls
for immediate action and any delay would have resulted
in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it
would not be feasible or practical to take down in
writing the information given to him, in such a
situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d)
of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical,
record the information in writing and forthwith inform
the same to the official superior .
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements
of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the
information received and sending a copy thereof to the
superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search
and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances
involving emergent situations, the recording of the
information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the
official superior may get postponed by a reasonable
period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The
question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-
sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible,
delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about
the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. To
-- 5 of 9 --
6
illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping
or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not
recording in writing the information received, before
initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such
information to the official superior forthwith, may not be
treated as violation of section 42. But if the information
was received when the police officer was in the police
station with sufficient time to take action, and if the
police officer fails to record in writing the information
received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official
superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being
a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly,
where the police officer does not record the information
at all, and does not inform the official superior at all,
then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the
Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial
compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to
be decided in each case. The above position got
strengthened with the amendment to section 42 by Act 9
of 2001.
10. In the light of aforesaid precedent, it is clear that the
empowered officer, who is on the move is at liberty to proceed
with the required action and then to record the information and
inform the same to his superior officer. This would be the adequate
and substantial compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act. Now coming
to the facts of the present case, SI Krishna though was on the
move, however still he recorded the information in writing and
also informed his superior officer on phone, who recorded the
information vide DD No.95A and also informed the concerned
ACP, who directed to take appropriate action. The information
recorded on paper by SI Krishna is also available on judicial record
which was registered vide GD No.32A dated 25.11.2022 and has
also been signed by his superior Inspector Rakesh Duhan and ACP
Raj Kumar on the same day. Thus, this court is of the view that the
compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act has been adequately done in
the present case.
-- 6 of 9 --
7
11. Now coming to the question whether the written
grounds for arrest were supplied to the applicant, the memo of
written grounds of arrest is available on judicial record, which has
been duly signed by the applicant and the signatures have not been
disputed by the counsel for the applicant. To add further, there is
an endorsement on the said memo which reads “मैं  मैं	 	 घा W/O Lekhraj
(विक्की ) की पत् नी	हूं	 	 	 और अपनी पति की विरफ़् र की आधार और विरफ़् र की कीरण
Copy हूं  सिल की	हूं	 ।" . The signatures of Megha with date 26.11.2025
are also present on the said memo. Accordingly, this court has no
doubt that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the applicant in
writing. The Hon’ble Apex court in Mihir Rajesh Shah case
(supra) held that it is mandatory to supply the written grounds of
arrest to the arrestee within reasonable time and in any case atleast
two hours prior to the production of arrestee for remand
proceedings before the Magistrate. It was observed thus:-
“66. In conclusion, it is held that:
66.1 The constitutional mandate of informing the
arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all
offences under all statutes including offences
under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
66.2 The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he/she
understands;
66.3 In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is
unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing
on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally.The said
grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable
time and in any case at least two hours prior to
production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before
the magistrate.
66.4 In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest
and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and
the person will be at liberty to be set free.”
-- 7 of 9 --
8
12. In the present case it is not the claim of the applicant that
the written grounds of arrest were not supplied to him before
producing him before the Magistrate or that he has raised such
claim of non supply of written grounds of arrest before the
Magistrate. The only contention raised by the Ld. counsel for the
applicant is that the written grounds for arrest were not mentioned
in the personal search memo and as such it is found to be
misconceived.
13. Lastly, the contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel
that the quantity of the contraband recovered from the applicant is
intermediate, in this regard, it is to be noted that the charge is not
yet framed in the present case. Whether the quantity is commercial
or intermediate, such contentions can be raised by the Ld. Defence
Counsel at the time of arguments on charge.
14. Considering the huge quantity of tramadol capsules
i.e. 4704 with weight 2.548 kgs and 200 grams of Opium coupled
with the facts that on the disclosure of the applicant, 480 capsules
of tramadol were also recovered from the co-accused, this court is
not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/ accused Lekhraj @
vicky. The application is hereby dismissed.
15. Nothing in this order shall tantamount to an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
17. Pursuant to directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021 titled as In Re
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail as well as in compliance of
judgment titled as Ajay Verma Vs. State, copy of this order be sent
to Jail Superintendent through e-mail.
-- 8 of 9 --
9
18. Copy of this order be given dasti as prayed for.
(Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
Spl. Judge(NDPS)/ASJ
North Distt., Rohini Courts,
Delhi/12.08.2026(r)
-- 9 of 9 --