Delhi High Court · 2025

BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 Page 1 of 8 $~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 SMT SANJU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajender Singh, Mr. Dushyant Mudgil, Mr. Rohit Chaudhary, Ms. Komal Chaudhary and Ms. Himani Kataria, Advocates. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. SI Anil Kumar, Anti-Narcotics Cell, South West. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 02.09.2025 CRL.M.A. 25732/2025 (seeking clarification) 1. On 20th August, 2025, this Court, after hearing the submissions advanced by counsel for the Applicant, recorded his statement seeking leave to withdraw the above-captioned bail application. During the course of arguments, counsel had specifically submitted that the Applicant would surrender before the concerned Court on 23rd August, 2025. Accordingly, the following order was passed: “1. The present application filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks pre-arrest bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 150/2025 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at P.S. Kapashera. 2. After making some submissions, counsel for the Applicant, on This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 11:53:12 BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 Page 2 of 8 instructions, states that the Applicant does not wish to pursue the present application and seeks permission to withdraw the same. Accordingly, counsel submits that the Applicant will surrender before the concerned Court on 23rd August, 2025. 3. The above statement is taken on record. 4. The present application is permitted to be withdrawn. 5. The Court has not commented on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.” 2. The Applicant has filed the present application seeking clarification of the above order to ensure that his right to pursue further legal remedies is not foreclosed. He submits that no specific request for withdrawal of the application was made by him, although it is admitted that he did undertake to surrender on the date specified. 3. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State, who was also present and heard on 20th August, 2025, strongly opposes the application and submits that counsel for the Applicant had unequivocally undertaken to withdraw the application during the hearing on the said date. 4. In the opinion of the Court, even if the benefit of the doubt is extended to the Applicant’s counsel to the effect that no express request for withdrawal of the bail application was made by him, his candid admission that the Applicant had undertaken to surrender before the Court on a specified date leads to the clear inference that the Applicant did not intend to pursue the application. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to issue any clarification to the order dated 20th August, 2025. 5. Nonetheless, given that the order may potentially impact the personal liberty of the Applicant, and in the interest of justice, this Court, on 28th August, 2025, had directed the State to file a status report. The said report has since been placed on record. The Court has accordingly, heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the case. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 11:53:12 BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 Page 3 of 8 6. The case of the Prosecution against the Applicant is as follows: 6.1 On 24th March, 2025, a tip-off was received from an informer regarding two individuals expected to arrive near Suri Farms, Bijwasan, Kapashera, for the purpose of supplying Cannabis (Ganja). It was further reported that these persons were involved in transporting Cannabis from West Bengal and distributing it within the Delhi NCR region. Acting on this information, a raiding team was constituted, which, along with the secret informer, proceeded to the designated location in private vehicles. 6.2 At approximately 04:10 PM, two persons arrived at the location from the direction of Najafgarh, traveling in a TSR vehicle. After alighting, they proceeded to walk towards the team. On identification by the secret informer, both persons were apprehended, and identified themselves as Rahul Haque and Rashidul Shek. Both were found in possession of Cannabis (Ganja). The FSL/Crime Team was called to the spot, and the contraband was tested using the NDPS Kit. Rahul Haque was found in possession of 32.11 kilograms of Cannabis, while Rashidul Shek had 6.908 kilograms. Consequent to these recoveries, the subject FIR was registered, and the accused were arrested. 6.3 At the instance of accused Rahul Haque, an additional recovery of 24.484 kilograms of Cannabis was effected from Kabaddi Market, Sector 113, Village Bajghera, Gurugram, Haryana. Rahul Haque further revealed that one Mohd. Ahad, who had met Rahul at his brother-in-law Sirajul’s Kabaddi Godown, introduced him to one Sanju [the Applicant], who was alleged to be the receiver of the contraband. Sanju was reported to be engaged in the sale of Cannabis and illicit liquor in the area. 6.4 Mohd. Ahad joined the investigation and was interrogated. He stated This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 11:53:12 BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 Page 4 of 8 that he met Rahul Haque at Sirajul’s Kabaddi shop, where Rahul requested him to introduce him to drug peddlers operating in the Delhi NCR region. Mohd. Ahad acknowledged that he knew the Applicant and introduced her to Rahul. 6.5 On 2nd April 2025, a raid was conducted to apprehend the Applicant at Tarachand Colony, Rangpuri, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, based on information provided by accused Rahul Haque. He identified a property as the Applicant’s residence. During the raid, a child was found selling Ganja and illicit liquor. When questioned about the child, Rahul Haque stated that he was acquainted with him, having met him during deliveries of Ganja to the Applicant, and that he was the Applicant’s grandson. Upon enquiry, the child disclosed his identity as CCL “K”, aged 11 years. He stated that the Applicant was his grandmother and that he lived with her. The child further disclosed that the Applicant used him to sell Ganja and illicit liquor. 6.6 The CCL’s grandfather was summoned to the scene and apprised of the facts. Also, JWO of PS Vasant Kunj South, SI Naveen, was present. After due compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a search of the CCL was conducted, which resulted in the recovery of 306 grams of Ganja and 55 quarters of illicit liquor branded as “ADS Fresh Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab” (180 ml each), as well as 6 quarters of illicit English liquor branded as “Imperial Blue Picked Grain Whisky”. 6.7 The CCL was apprehended and, during examination, disclosed that his mother lived separately from his father and that he resided with his grandmother, the Applicant. He stated that the Applicant used him to sell Ganja and illicit liquor. Further, he revealed that he sold Ganja, referred to as pudhiya, at ₹100 per pudhiya, and illicit liquor was sold according to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 11:53:12 BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 Page 5 of 8 brand rates. The child was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board-VII, Dwarka. 6.8 The Applicant could not be apprehended despite repeated efforts. Multiple raids were conducted at her residence, which was consistently found locked. Local enquiries revealed that the Applicant and her family had not been seen in the area since the date of apprehension of the CCL. The Applicant was found absconding, pursuant to which NBWs were obtained, and subsequently, proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS were initiated against her. 7. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the Prosecution’s case against the Applicant hinges primarily on the disclosure statement of co-accused Rahul Haque as well as the statement of a minor child aged 11 years. Counsel emphasizes that no incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the Applicant or from her residence during the search conducted by the raiding party. Neither is there is any evidence of any monetary transactions, telephone calls, WhatsApp communications, or any other links between the Applicant and the co-accused Rahul Haque in relation to the alleged commission of the offence. It is submitted that the Applicant has not even been specifically named in the FIR. 8. Counsel further argues that, since the investigation has already been completed and the chargesheet has been filed, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is no longer necessary. It is also contended that that the Applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi and undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for the State to seek custody of the Applicant. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 11:53:12 BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 Page 6 of 8 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State, strongly opposes the present application and submits that the investigation against the present Applicant is still ongoing. He clarifies that although a chargesheet has been filed against co-accused Rahul Haque, the investigation in respect of the Applicant is yet to be concluded. It is contended that there exists sufficient material on record, as detailed in the status report, which necessitates further investigation. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is essential to ascertain her role in the alleged offence. Mr. Singh further argues that the Applicant’s attempt to disassociate herself from the child found at the premises is misplaced, as school records list her as the child’s legal guardian. Additionally, it is pointed out that the Applicant has criminal antecedents, having been involved in multiple cases registered under the Delhi Excise Act. It is also submitted that the Applicant is a “bad character” of the locality in which she resides. Accordingly, it is urged that the Applicant ought not to be granted pre-arrest bail. 10. The Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties as well as perused the material placed on record. It is noted that the investigation in respect of the present Applicant is still underway. Prima facie material has emerged during the course of investigation which links the Applicant to the alleged offences. 11. For instance, the Call Detail Records of the accused persons reveal that co-accused Rahul Haque and Rashidul Shek visited the Applicant’s location on multiple occasions, ostensibly for the delivery of contraband substances. In view of this, Section 29 of the NDPS Act was invoked in the present case, indicating conspiracy and abetment in the commission of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 11:53:12 BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 Page 7 of 8 offence. 12. Further, the investigation uncovered two UPI QR codes affixed outside the Applicant’s residence, both linked to an SBI bank account held in the name of the Applicant. The bank statements of the said account record multiple credit transactions of ₹100/- and ₹200/-, corroborating the statement of the CCL who disclosed that contraband was sold at ₹100/- per unit (pudhiya). Pertinently, after the apprehension of the CCL on 2nd April, 2025, no further credit entries were recorded in the said account. 13. Additionally, the Prosecution obtained documents from Suraj Convent School, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, pertaining to the age and guardianship of the CCL, which recorded Vikram and Sanju [the Applicant] as his guardians. The school’s attendance register further reflected that the CCL was irregular in attending classes. Consequently, in view of these emerging facts, offences under Section 78 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 95 of the BNSS were also invoked against the Applicant for allegedly employing the CCL to sell contraband substances and illicit liquor. 14. In light of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered view that there exists sufficient prima facie material on record to connect the Applicant to the alleged offences. The allegations are substantiated not merely by disclosures but also supported by documentary evidence, including school records designating the Applicant as the guardian of the CCL, CDRs demonstrating repeated contact with co-accused, and bank statements linked to QR codes recovered from the Applicant’s residence. Accordingly, the Court finds the State’s request for custodial interrogation of the Applicant to unravel the entire modus operandi of the sale and supply contraband to be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 11:53:12 BAIL APPLN. 3165/2025 Page 8 of 8 justified. 15. Furthermore, the Applicant is stated to be involved in multiple cases registered under the Delhi Excise Act and is reflected as an active “bad character” of Police Station Vasant Kunj (South). These considerations, when viewed in conjunction with the grave nature of the allegations, particularly the purported use of a minor for the distribution of contraband substances, and the evidence collected during the course of investigation, weigh heavily against the grant of pre-arrest bail. 16. Accordingly, notwithstanding the earlier withdrawal of this application by the Applicant’s counsel, the Court finds no justifiable ground, even on merits, to grant the relief sought by the Applicant. Consequently, the present application is dismissed, along with pending application. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2025/d.negi