Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: I.A. No. 02/2026
SC No. 314/2024
State Vs. Sonu
FIR No. 433/2024
P.S. Seemapuri
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act
23.02.2026
At 4:00 pm
Present: Sh. Jitendra Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
Sh. Pankaj Bhushan, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused.
1. Vide this order, the undersigned shall decide an
application U/s 483 BNSS (old Section 439 Cr.P.C.) moved on
behalf of the applicant/ accused Sonu for grant of bail.
2. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused that in the present matter, 2.240 Kgs of
ganja have been
shown to be recovered from applicant/ accused which is
intermediate quantity. It is contended that he was initially
arrested in the present matter on 21.06.2024, however vide order
dated 25.09.2024 he was granted bail in the present matter on
merit. It is contended that the said bail application of applicant/
accused was moved by the DLSA Counsel and after getting the
bail order, the bail bond was furnished by the present private
counsel as such the applicant/ accused was not aware regarding
dates of hearing in the present matter as he was not having the
mobile numbers of his DLSA Counsel and private counsel, due to
which he lost track of the present matter and unable to appear in
the present matter. Consequently, proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C.
….Cont.
-- 1 of 5 --
-2-
were initiated against applicant/ accused. In the meanwhile,
applicant/ accused was produced on Kalandra U/s 35.1(c) BNSS
on 20.08.2025 before the Court and he was taken into custody.
Since then, applicant/ accused is running in J/C in the present
case. It is contended that applicant/ accused is an innocent person
and is not involved in any other case. It is contended that custody
of applicant/ accused is no more required in the present matter. It
is contended that trial of the present case would take considerable
period of time to conclude. It is contended that applicant/ accused
is in custody for a considerable period of time, he has learnt his
lesson and he will regularly appear in the Court in future. Hence,
it is requested that applicant/ accused may be granted bail as no
useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody.
3. The present bail application has been vehemently
opposed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the ground that all the
order-sheets and dates of hearing of this Court were duly
updated/ uploaded on CIS Software. Further, even if it is
assumed that applicant/ accused has no contact with his counsel,
still he did not physically come in the Court and inspected the
file or did not ask the Court Staff about this case. It is contended
that applicant/ accused was well aware of the present case,
despite that he did not appear before the Court for a single day
after grant of bail, which shows that he was deliberately not
appearing before this Court and deliberately delayed the
proceedings of the present matter. It is contended that the
applicant/ accused has been involved in one other case bearing
FIR No. 1006/2021, P.S. Sahibabad, U/s 8/21 NDPS Act which
….Cont.
-- 2 of 5 --
-3-
shows that applicant/ accused is a habitual offender. It is
contended that in the present case 2.240 Kgs
ganja i.e.
intermediate quantity was recovered from the applicant/ accused.
It is contended that proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated
against the applicant/ accused and after that he could be arrested
only on 20.08.2025. The conduct of the applicant/ accused does
not allow to grant bail to him in the present matter as there is
every apprehension that if bail may be granted to him, he may
again run away from justice. Hence, the present bail application
of the applicant/ accused may be dismissed.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. In
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee &
Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“
11. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
6. A perusal of the record shows that applicant/
accused was arrested in the present case on 21.06.2024 and
charge-sheet was filed against him. He was granted bail vide
order dated 25.09.2024. Thereafter, he stopped appearing before
the Court as a result of which NBWs were issued against him,
but he could not be traced and he continued avoiding the process
and warrants issued by this Court. Thereafter, process U/s 82
….Cont.
-- 3 of 5 --
-4-
Cr.P.C. was issued on 23.07.2025, however prior to execution of
process U/s 82 Cr.P.C., applicant/ accused was apprehended and
was produced before the Court on Kalandra U/s 35.1(c) BNSS on
20.08.2025 and he was taken into custody. Since then he is
running in J/C. The applicant/ accused has been involved in one
other case bearing FIR No. 1006/2021, P.S. Sahibabad, U/s 8/21
NDPS Act.
Be that as it may, considering the facts that charge
was framed U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act against the applicant/
accused with respect to recovery of 2.240 Kgs
ganja; trial of the
present case would take considerable time and applicant/ accused
cannot be kept in custody as punitive measure, the undersigned is
inclined to grant benefit of bail to the present applicant/ accused.
7. With these observations, the present bail application
is hereby allowed and applicant/ accused Sonu, is hereby,
admitted to bail subject to deposit of amount of Rs. 20,000/- i.e.
total amount of his earlier personal bond as well as surety bond
as his personal bond and surety bond were forfeited, but no
amount qua same could be recovered. Since applicant/ accused
deliberately avoided his appearance before the Court, hence he
has to be burdened with the deposit of forfeiture amount of his
personal bond as well as of the surety bond. He is further directed
to furnish fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned, subject to the conditions mentioned herein below:-
(i) That the applicant/ accused shall keep his mobile phone
and its location operational;
….Cont.
-- 4 of 5 --
-5-
(ii) That the applicant/ accused shall convey any change of
address immediately to the IO and to the Court;
(iii) That the applicant/ accused shall not leave the Country
without prior permission of the Court;
(iv) That the applicant/ accused or his family members will not
contact/ communicate to the witnesses, in any manner, directly or
indirectly;
(v) That the applicant/ accused will not induce/ harass/
threaten the witness or tamper the evidence, in any manner;
(vi) That the applicant/ accused shall not indulge in/ commit
any kind of activities as alleged against him in the present case;
vii) That the applicant/ accused shall attend the Court
proceedings regularly.
8. It is made clear that fresh bail bond of applicant/
accused will be considered only after deposit of amount of Rs.
20,000/- in the Court as he deliberately stopped appearing in the
Court in a well planned calculated manner i.e. immediately after
granting bail in the present matter.
9.
Nothing expressed here-in-above, shall tantamount
to any opinion on the merits of this case.
10. Copies of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel
for applicant/ accused and to the IO, as per rules.
(Gajender Singh Nagar)
Special Judge (NDPS Act)
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts
Delhi/23.02.2026
-- 5 of 5 --