Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 46.
BAIL SC/178/2026(IA-1)
ST VS MANISH KUMAR PRASAD
FIR No. 537/2025
PS KESHAV PURAM
20.05.2026
Present : Sh. K D Pachauri, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Nishant, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused(through
VC).
1. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS for grant of bail,
moved on behalf of applicant/accused Manish Kumar Prasad.
2. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for applicant/accused that accused is
in JC since 01.09.2025 and alleged recovery of contraband is 21.200 kg
and that the said recovery is false, fabricated and planted and very
foundation of prosecution case is doubtful and that no CCTV Footage has
been seized on record and no CCTV Footage of search/seizure has been
brought on record. It is further submitted that no CCTV Footage could be
traced out despite the application moved by applicant u/s 94 Cr. P.C
which suggests that the applicant is falsely implicated. It is submitted that
no genuine independent public witness was joined despite availability of
public persons. It is submitted that despite close proximityof PS, no
Gazetted Officer was associated at the time of alleged proceedings and
that there is also unexplained delay in compliance of statutory procedure,
in as much as proceedings u/s 105 BNSS. It is further submitted that
mobile phone of accused was being used even after the alleged arrest
which clearly shows that false case has been made against the applicant.
-- 1 of 3 --
It is further submitted that SID Footage was not made by arresting team
instead the same was made by crime team and no reason has been given
in this regard.
3. It is submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that as per report
of IO, the offence alleged is grave in nature and accused was arrested in
case of recovery of commercial quantity and conscious possession and
directed involvement of accused has been proved against applicant. It is
submitted that established nexus and organized activity has been proved
from the applicant. It is submitted that in the case of chance recovery,
arresting team does not make SID Footage. It is submitted that there is
likelihood of accused absconding. It is submitted that there is every
likelihood of accused absconding and evading the process of law and
accused has been involved in previous involements in NDPS activities. It
is submitted that as per judgment of SC in Pawan Vs. State of Himachal,
there is no need of serving notice u/s 50 NDPS as recovery was not from
the body of person. Hence, submitted that the bail be dismissed.
4. Heard. Perused.
5. Considering the fact that the recovery from applicant is of
commercial quantity and the defects in the investigation reflected by
counsel for the applicant are not sufficient in the absence of any concrete
evidence contrary to the charge sheet, bar u/s 37 NDPS Act is applicable.
Hence, application seeking regular bail is dismissed.
6. In view of the recommendations of Rules Committee under
Section 523 of BNSS, 2023 with respect to the practice directions issued
-- 2 of 3 --
by Hon’be Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition no. W.P.(C)
1082/2022 Suhash Chakma Vs. Union of India & Ors., the applicant can
avail the free legal aid facility from District Legal Services Authority
(North-West) at Room No. 405, 4th Floor, District Court Rohini,
Delhi-110085. Applicant may contact the authority on phone number
011-27555536 or through mail at e-mail ID northwest-dlsa@nic.in.
(SHIVAJI ANAND)
ASJ-II/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS/
NORTH-WEST/ROHINI COURTS/
DELHI/20.05.2026
-- 3 of 3 --