BAIL APPLN./161/2025 of MAHESH Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 161/2025 & CRL.M.A. 1049/2025MAHESH.....Petitioner

Through:Mr Suraj Prakash Sharma, Advocate.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI).....Respondent

Through:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.ASI Rajeshwar, PS: Ranhola.ASI Rajeshwar, PS: Ranhola.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R

30.01.2025

1.The present application has been filed under Section 483 of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.834/2024 dated 14[th]December, 2024 registered at P.S. Ranhola, for theoffence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985.[1]

2.The case of the Prosecution, as per the status report, is as follows:

2.1On 14[th]December, 2024 an information vide DD No. 120A wasreceived at P.S. Ranhola pertaining to the recovery of contraband item.Pursuant to the said DD entry, the Applicant was apprehended with oneplastic panni in his hand containing contraband substance.

2.2During investigation, the Applicant was served notice under Section50 of the NDPS Act. Efforts were made to secure the participation of

1 NDPS Act”

public witness; however, due to time constraints, no public witness was ableto join the investigation.

2.3In the course of investigation, the recovered contraband item wasweighed separately, and the weight, inclusive of the plastic bags, wasrecorded as 1.234 kg. Subsequently, the Applicant was arrested inaccordance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

2.4Thereafter, in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, on 19[th]December, 2024, sampling was conducted before the Court Tis HazariDelhi. The sampling order so received was sent to FSL, the results of whichare currently awaited.

2.5Investigation in the matter stands completed, and the case file is beingsent to Prosecution branch for scrutiny.

2.6The Applicant has prior criminal record, having been involved inoffences under the Excise Act, and as such, should not be released on bail.

3.Counsel for the Applicant submits that he has not committed thealleged offence and the purported recovery of the contraband has not beenmade from his conscious possession. He submits that the Applicant has beenfalsely implicated, and no recovery of the alleged contraband has beeneffected from his possession, nor at his instance.

4.TheCourthasconsideredtheaforenotedcontentions.Whileevaluating bail application, the Court must consider several factors,including whether there is prima facie case or reasonable grounds tobelieve the accused has committed the offence, the likelihood of the accusedrepeating the offence, the nature and seriousness of the accusation, theseverity of the potential punishment upon conviction, the risk of the accusedabsconding or fleeing if granted bail and the reasonable apprehension ofwitnesses being intimidated by the accused.

BAIL APPLN. 161/2025

5.In the instant matter, the Prosecution has alleged that 1.284 kg ofGanja has been recovered from the Applicant, which quantity falls under theintermediate category as per the NDPS Act. Since the recovered contrabandis classified under the intermediate quantity category, the rigours of Section37 will not be applicable.

6.The Applicant has asserted that he is firmly rooted in India and is apermanent resident of Delhi, thereby mitigating any flight risk.

7.The Applicant has been in custody for around 1.5 months.Investigation in the present case stands concluded, with the chargesheetcurrently in the process of being filed. As such, the Applicant’s presence isno longer required for the purpose of further investigation or custodialinterrogation.

8.Moreover, although the Prosecution has highlighted the Applicant’sprior involvement in offences under the Excise Act, it is well-establishedthat the mere existence of antecedents cannot serve as the sole grounds fordenying bail. The Supreme Court has clarified that, where the accusedestablishes strong prima facie case, and depending on the specific factsand the duration of pre-trial detention, the presence of previous criminalrecords may not constitute valid reason to refuse bail.[2]

9.In the present case, it is noted that the Applicant is not subject to thestringent conditions outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act; there is noflight risk associated with the Applicant; the Prosecution has not raised anyconcerns regarding tampering of evidence; and the Applicant is not requiredfor any further investigative actions. Under such circumstances, the Court isof the opinion that the Applicant cannot be denied bail, solely on the groundof his prior antecedents. It is well-established through numerous rulings by

2 Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763.

the Supreme Court that the purpose of bail is not punitive or preventative.The fundamental objective is to secure the presence of the accused at trial.[3]Consequently, the Court is inclined to grant the application for regular bail.

10.Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail onfurnishing personal bond for sum of INR 50,000/- with two sureties ofthe like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on thefollowing conditions:

a.The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ortamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

b.The Applicant shall, under no circumstances, leave the boundaries ofthe country without the permission of the Trial Court;

c.The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and whendirected;

d.The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residingafter his release and shall not change the address without informing theconcerned IO/SHO;

e.The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to theconcerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.11.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodgedagainst the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal byfiling an application seeking cancellation of bail.

12.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not influencethe outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

3 Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation,

BAIL APPLN. 161/2025

13.With the above directions, the present application, is allowed.

JANUARY 30, 2025d.negi

SANJEEV NARULA, J

(2022) 10 SCC 51.

BAIL APPLN. 161/2025