Delhi High Court: While hearing a petition for regular bail in connection with a First Information Report registered at Police Station Narcotics Control Bureau (‘NCB’) under Sections 8, 22(c), 23(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Vikas Mahajan, J, observed that no strips of Tramadol or Zolpidem tablets had been recovered from the person of the petitioner accused, independent corroboration in the chain of recovery was missing and the accused had been incarcerated for over two years. Considering the same, the Court granted regular bail to the accused subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a surety of the like amount.
Background
As per the prosecution, an information had been received by Junior Intelligence Officer of the NCB whereby it was stated that the parcel bearing AWB No. 7702909491 was lying at DHL Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and was suspected to contain psychotropic substances. In pursuance of the same, a team had been constituted and had searched the DHL Express Office wherein they had opened the said parcel and found 11 lace rolls and 3 pieces of clothes containing a total of 13200 strips of Tramadol tablets. During course of the enquiry it was discovered that the parcel had been booked through a firm OGS Groups by one of the accused GC.
On the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused GC, a second seizure had been made at UPS Express Pvt. Ltd., Delhi containing 15000 Zolpidem tablets. Subsequently, another consignment containing 19440 Tramadol tablets had been seized at Global India Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
The accused GC had disclosed that the seized parcels had been booked by him for USA on the direction of the co-accused TA. The co-accused TA had further disclosed the involvement of the present accused and co-accused R and Z. This disclosure had led to the arrest of the accused following which, the petitioner had submitted his voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS.
NCB averred that the order for the parcels had been placed one Mr. K who had transferred a sum of Rs. 80,000 to the accused. Refuting such allegations, the accused submitted that the amount so received had been for the purpose of the accused’s sister’s wedding and not for any illicit activity. The accused further averred that no contraband had been seized from the personal possession of the accused and sole basis of prosecution was the disclosure statement by the accused and the co-accused which were inadmissible.
The accused further submitted that he had been incarcerated for more than two years and the trial has been substantially delayed.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the prosecution’s case against the accused was primarily anchored on the recovery of 15,000 Zolpidem tablets from UPS Express Pvt. Ltd., which was sought to be linked to him through disclosure statements, a financial transaction of Rs. 80,000, and alleged digital evidence.
The Court stated that while considering an application for bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry into the evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The Court is required merely to form a prima facie opinion on the basis of the material on record to ascertain whether the accused is guilty and likely to commit any on bail.
As regards the complicity of the accused, the Court noted that the prosecution relied heavily upon the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons GC and TA and the accused’s own statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. In light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, such statements are inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
The Court further observed that no independent witness had been examined during the seizure to establish the crucial link in the chain of recovery and that no recovery of the contraband had been made from the personal or conscious possession of the accused but rather from premises of courier companies upon disclosure statements of the co-accused GC.
Thus, the Court opined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty of the alleged crime and if he were to be enlarged on bail, he was not likely to commit any offence.
Considering such factors, the Court granted regular bail to the accused, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a surety of the like amount.
[Kashif v. Narcotic Control Bureau, Bali Appl No. 1453 of 2025, decided on 12-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Akshay Bhandari, Megha Saroa, Anmol Sachdeva, Kushal Kumar, Janak Raj Ambavat, Moin Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Arun Khatri, Sr. SC, Shelly Dixit, Tracy Sebastian, Devender Singh, Advocates