Judgment · High Court · 2026

Mr. M.S. Mavi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Mavi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Senior D Senior DAG Hry. SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL *****

#1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya 3 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to 3 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.189 the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. , registered for the dated 18.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) a offences punishable under Section of the Narcotic Drugs and (c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station DLF Phase-I, Gurugram. DLF Phase

#2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that he was The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that he g the search of the apprehended while he was travelling in a Swift car and during the search of the apprehended while he was travelling in a Swift car and durin apprehended while he was travelling in a Swift car and durin vehicle, 147 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup (Batch S vehicle, 147 bottles of Codeine 361024), 117 based cough syrup (Batch S-361024), 117 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup (Batch S bottles of Codeine 371024), 4800 capsules of based cough syrup (Batch S-371024), 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine (Piengo Plus) and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based Tramadol based medicine (Piengo Plus) and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based Tramadol based medicine (Piengo Plus) and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based Tramadol based medicine (Piengo Plus) and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based Spas Plus) have been recovered. In total, 264 bottles of medicine (Pyeevon-Spas Plus) have been recovered. In total, 264 bottles of Spas Plus) have been recovered. In total, 264 bottles of medicine (Pyeevon Codeine syrup and 6720 capsules containing Tramadol have allegedly being Codeine syrup and 6720 capsules containing Tramadol have allegedly being Codeine syrup and 6720 capsules containing Tramadol have allegedly being Codeine syrup and 6720 capsules containing Tramadol have allegedly being recovered from the possession of the petitioner. recovered from the possession of the petitioner. recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

#3. petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further CRM-M- -16910-2026 2 alleged recovery is highly doubtful as no independent iterated that the alleged recovery is highly doubtful as no independent alleged recovery is highly doubtful as no independent iterated that the witness has been associated with the recovery proceedings witness has been associa . According to ted with the recovery proceedings. According to there are inherent discrepancies with regard to exact place learned counsel, there are inherent discrepancies with regard to exact place there are inherent discrepancies with regard to exact place learned counsel, of recovery as no material in the shape of CCTV footage or call details recovery as no material in the shape of CCTV footage or call details as no material in the shape of CCTV footage or call details records to establish the presence of the petitioner at the alleged spot has records to establish the presence of the petitioner at the records to establish the presence of the petitioner at the which completely demolishes the case of the been brought on record which completely demolishes the case of the which completely demolishes the case of the been brought on record prosecution. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions prosecution. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. prosecution case suffer Learned counsel has further s from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further prosecution has failed to join any independent public contended that the prosecution has failed to join any independent public prosecution has failed to join any independent public contended that the witness to the search and seizure proceedings despite the fact that the witness to the search and seizure proceedings despite the fact that the witness to the search and seizure proceedings despite the fact that the witness to the search and seizure proceedings despite the fact that the ermore, the alleged recovery has been made from a public place. Furthermore, the alleged recovery has been made from a public place. Furth alleged recovery has been made from a public place. Furth on the documents prepared by entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the documents prepared by entire case against the petitioner rests solely entire case against the petitioner rests solely police officials, alleged recovery memos and statements of police witnesses police officials, alleged recovery memos and statements of police witnesses police officials, alleged recovery memos and statements of police witnesses police officials, alleged recovery memos and statements of police witnesses credible material to establish and there is no independent corroboration nay credible material to establish and there is no independent corroboration and there is no independent corroboration possession of the narcotic and psychotropic substance. the conscious possession of the narcotic and psychotropic substance. possession of the narcotic and psychotropic substance. the conscious Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and surmises and lacks any credible evidence to connect the petitioner with the and lacks any credible evidence to connect the petitioner with the and lacks any credible evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery. It has been further contended alleged recovery that the mandatory . It has been further contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in letter and spirit. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the letter and spirit. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the It has been further liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. It has been further liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. and has already ated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2025 and has already ated that the petitioner is in custody since iterated that the petitioner is in custody since undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, the undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, the undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, the undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude as out of 16 trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude as out of trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude as out of trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude as out of been examined. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses cited, none has been examined. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses cited, none has prosecution witnesses cited, none has CRM-M- -16910-2026 3 petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he is likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he is likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he is likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he is granted the concession of regular bail. On the strength of these submissions, granted the concession of regular bail. On the strength of these submissions, On the strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for. the grant of regular bail is entreated for.

#4. , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature on of regular bail. and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concessi and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concessi petition in hand does not Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petition in hand does not Learned State counsel has further submitted that Learned State counsel has further submitted that meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected on this score alone. Furthermore, the petitioner is a habitual offender as on this score alone. he is the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in three other cases under the NDPS Act. In case, the petitioner is involved in three other cases under the NDPS Act. involved in three other cases under the NDPS Act. In case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also justice and also justice and also justice and also interfere with interfere with interfere with interfere with the prosecution witnesses/evidence. the prosecution witnesses/evidence. the prosecution witnesses/evidence. the prosecution witnesses/evidence. sal of the petition in hand is prayed for. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. Accordingly, the dismis

#5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper- I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper book as also the record produced before me. book as also the record produced before me. book as also the record produced before me.

#6. Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution case petitioner. As per the prosecu the petitioner was apprehended case, the petitioner was apprehended while travelling in a car and during the search of the said vehicle, 147 while travelling in a car and during the search of the said vehicle, 147 while travelling in a car and during the search of the said vehicle, 147 while travelling in a car and during the search of the said vehicle, 147 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup, 117 bottles of Codeine bottles of Codeine based cough based cough syrup, 117 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup, 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine and 1920 capsules of syrup, 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine and 1920 capsules of syrup, 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine and 1920 capsules of syrup, 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based medicine have been recovered from the boot of the car. Tramadol based medicine have been recovered from the Tramadol based medicine have been recovered from the of the car. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. tuating or exceptional circumstances have been made Furthermore, no accentuating or exceptional circumstances have been made tuating or exceptional circumstances have been made Furthermore, no accen constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular out which may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular out which may bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity CRM-M- -16910-2026 4 of the contraband. The Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication of of the contraband. The Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication of the contraband. The Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication of the contraband. The Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication merely based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent the petitioner merely based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent merely based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent the petitioner material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, as falsely implicated into the FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, as FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, as falsely implicated into the the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be clarified during the course of trial. clarified during the course of trial.

#7. whereinafter The petitioner was arrested on 18.07.2025 whereinafter The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan qua investigation was carried o the petitioner was presented on qua the petitioner was presented on cited prosecution witnesses, none has been 14.01.2026. Out of total 16 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been cited prosecution witnesses, none has been 14.01.2026 examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought forth before this Court, no cause nay plausible cause is m forth before ade out in favour of plausible cause is made out in favour of which is the petitioner to meet with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is the petitioner to meet with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act the petitioner to meet with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) Union of India versus Namdeo passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Union of India versus Namdeo passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Union of uba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/2025; Union of uba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/2025 Ashruba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/2025 India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to 2025 and State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5020/2026. Appeal (Crl.) No.5020/2026

7.1. Furthermore, the petitioner is in custody since . The hermore, the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2025. The the quantity of period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner vis.-a-vis., the quantity of period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner contraband recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as contraband recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as contraband recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as contraband recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as this regard can be made to the judgment(s) of well. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) of this regard can be made to the judgment(s) of well. A profitable reference in State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa = 2026 Gora = 2026 INSC 411 and State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa = 2026 State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa = 2026 Gora = 2026 INSC 411 INSC 618. INSC 618.

7.2. significant factor which deserves to be Another important nay significant factor which deserves to be significant factor which deserves to be considered at this stage is the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which considered at this stage is the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which considered at this stage is the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which considered at this stage is the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which CRM-M- -16910-2026 5 reflect his involvement in three other cases of similar nature. Though mere reflect his involvement in three other cases of similar nature. Though mere reflect his involvement in three other cases of similar nature. Though mere reflect his involvement in three other cases of similar nature. Though mere lihood of pendency of cases is not a ground to deny the bail but the likelihood of pendency of cases is not a ground to deny the bail but the like pendency of cases is not a ground to deny the bail but the like repetition of offence or misuse of liberty cannot be ruled out at this stage. In repetition of offence or misuse of liberty cannot be ruled out at this stage. In repetition of offence or misuse of liberty cannot be ruled out at this stage. In repetition of offence or misuse of liberty cannot be ruled out at this stage. In the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner do raise a legitimate the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner do raise a legitimate the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner do raise a legitimate the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner do raise a legitimate concern regarding the potential risk if he is released on bail. Furthermore, concern regarding the potential risk if he is released on bail. Furthermore, concern regarding the potential risk if he is released on bail. Furthermore, concern regarding the potential risk if he is released on bail. Furthermore, no accentuating circumstances have been made which no accentuati prima facie ng circumstances have been made which may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed on record. on record.

#8. of the Hence, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the Hence, keeping in view the en case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being commercial in nature, criminal antecedents; commercial in nature, likelihood of the petitioner going criminal antecedents; likelihood of the petitioner going abscond from the process of justice & also interfere with the prosecution abscond from the process of justice & also interfere with the prosec to abscond from the process of justice & also interfere with the prosec witnesses/ evidence; the petition in hand deserves to be dismissed. witnesses/ evidence; the petition in hand deserves to be witnesses/ evidence; the petition in hand deserves to be

#10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. opinion on the merits of the case.

#11. g miscellaneous Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous Since the main case has been decided, pendin , if any, shall also stand disposed off. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. application (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE July 23, 202 Ajay 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No