Delhi High Court – Orders
Amit vs State Of Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4376/2025
AMIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Bhatt, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
SI Sohan Thakur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 23.03.2026
1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks grant of
bail in connection with FIR No. 174/2024 dated 29.02.2024, registered at
Police Station Narela, District Outer North, New Delhi, under Sections
21/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
[“the NDPS Act“].
2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant, and
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
3. The prosecution has also placed on record a status report dated
07.03.2026.
4. The case of the prosecution, as stated in the status report, is that, on
the basis of secret information, an e-rickshaw bearing No. DL-10ER-
BAIL APPLN. 4376/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 23/03/2026 at 22:27:06
4686 was intercepted on 29.02.2024 at about 02:35 PM, at a location near
Raja Harish Chandra Hospital, Narela, Delhi. The applicant herein was
driving the e-rickshaw, and one Ranjeet [co-accused] was sitting in the
rear seat. After complying with the mandatory provisions of law, a search
was conducted of both accused persons. A black-coloured polyethene
packet containing light brown powder was recovered from the pocket of
co-accused Ranjeet, which was found to be heroin upon testing with a
field-testing kit. The weight of the recovered substance was found to be
300 grams. The heroin was sealed and seized, and the e-rickshaw was
also seized.
5. It is also alleged that, in the course of investigation, it was
revealed, in the disclosure statements of the applicant and co-accused
Ranjeet, that the heroin was supplied by one Jakir and was to be supplied
to a woman referred to as ‘Amma’. During further investigation, one
Sahida was also arrested on 02.03.2024, and 30 grams of heroin were
recovered from her possession at her residence.
6. In support of the present bail application, Mr. Bhatt submits that
the applicant has already been in judicial custody for a period of over two
years, in a case where there was no recovery from his personal
possession. The applicant was only driving the e-rickshaw in which co-
accused Ranjeet was travelling, from whom recovery of the contraband
has been effected.
7. Mr. Bhatt also submits, relying upon a birth certificate issued by
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi bearing registration No. MCDOLIR-
0112-005205844, that the applicant’s date of birth is 13.02.2007, and,
therefore, on the date of the alleged offence, he was 17 years and 16 days
BAIL APPLN. 4376/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 23/03/2026 at 22:27:06
of age. He submits that the applicant should, therefore, have been
apprehended and proceeded against as a Child in Conflict with Law
[“CCL”].
8. Mr. Chauhan, on the other hand, submits that the present offence
concerns recovery of a commercial quantity of heroin [above 250 grams],
as 300 grams was recovered from co-accused Ranjeet, and 30 grams was
recovered thereafter from co-accused Sahida. It is submitted that the
material against the applicant includes Call Detail Records, which show
frequent contact with co-accused Ranjeet. Mr. Chauhan has also drawn
my attention to the disclosure statement of the applicant and Ranjeet to
contend that the two were known to each other and that Ranjeet was, in
fact, recruited into drug trafficking by the applicant herein.
9. As far as the age of the applicant is concerned, Mr. Chauhan
submits that the Investigating Officer has obtained a date of birth
certificate from the applicant’s school, M.C. Primary Boys School, B2-II,
JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi – 110039, which certifies his date of birth as
13.02.2006. The document has been referred to in the status report, and a
copy from the police file has been handed up in Court and is taken on
record.
10. Turning first to the question of whether the applicant is liable to be
treated as a CCL, Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 [“the JJ Act“], provides for the hierarchy of
documents which may be considered to determine the age of a person.
Section 94(2) provides that the first document to be considered is the date
of birth certificate issued by the school attended by the concerned person,
and it is only in the absence of such a document, that reliance can be
BAIL APPLN. 4376/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 23/03/2026 at 22:27:06
placed upon the birth certificate issued by a municipal authority.
11. At the present stage, therefore, when the Court is not undertaking a
trial, but is only looking at the prima facie material on record, I am of the
view that the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by the
school attended by the applicant must be taken to be correct. Proceeding
on this basis, the applicant’s date of birth is 13.02.2006, and he had,
therefore, attained the age of 18 years before the date of the aforesaid
arrest, i.e. 29.02.2024.
12. With regard to the merits of the matter, I am conscious of the fact
that the recovery is of a commercial quantity of contraband, which
attracts the rigorous of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, it is clear
from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT
of Delhi)1 that the satisfaction in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is
required to be undertaken on a prima facie basis, and the Court is not
expected to draw a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt at this stage.
13. Analyzing the facts of the present case on this basis, it is evident
that, although the applicant was driving the e-rickshaw in which co-
accused Ranjeet was travelling, the admitted position is that there was no
actual recovery from the applicant, but only from the pocket of Ranjeet.
The question of whether the applicant is liable would turn upon whether
conscious possession of the contraband substance can be attributed to
him. While this issue would have to be determined at trial, there is no
prima facie material on the basis of which this inference can be drawn at
this stage. The disclosure statements also do not appear to be supported
by any corroborative material at this stage. The existence of telephone
BAIL APPLN. 4376/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 23/03/2026 at 22:27:06
connectivity between the parties is also, in my view, inconclusive at this
stage, as, there are no transcripts or other material, which could throw
light upon the nature of the conversations.
14. Further, several judgments of the Supreme Court establish that
prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, even in cases to which Section
37 of the NDPS Act or similar twin conditions are applicable, is
inconsistent with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution. Reference
in this connection may be made to the judgments/orders inter alia in
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial
Prisoners) v. Union of India and Others2, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb3,
Jitendra Jain v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr.4, Dheeraj Kumar
Shukla v. State of U.P.5, Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha6, Badsha SK. v.
The State of West Bengal7, Man Mandal and Anr. v. The State of West
Bengal8, and Rased Mia v. The State of West Bengal9. Proceeding on
these considerations, the applicant has been in custody for over two years
already. The trial is still at a nascent stage. Mr. Chauhan submits that, out
of 27 witnesses, 3 have been examined so far. Expeditious conclusion of
proceedings, therefore, seems unlikely.
15. The applicant is only 20 years of age. The Nominal Roll also does
not show any prior criminal involvement of the applicant.
16. Considering the aforementioned factors, it is directed that the
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, paragraphs 19 to 22.
2
(1994) 6 SCC 731.
3
(2021) 3 SCC 713.
4
SLP (Crl.) No. 8900/2022, decided on 16.12.2022.
5
SLP (Crl.) No. 6690/2022, decided on 25.01.2023.
6
SLP (Crl.) No. 4169/2023, decided on 13.07.2023.
7
SLP (Crl.) No. 975/2023, decided on 13.09.2023.
8
SLP (Crl.) No. 8656/2023, decided on 14.09.2023.
BAIL APPLN. 4376/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 23/03/2026 at 22:27:06
applicant be released on regular bail in connection with FIR No.
174/2024 dated 29.02.2024, registered at Police Station Narela, District
Outer North, New Delhi, under Sections 21/25/29 of the NDPS Act,
subject to furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with one
surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court/Duty Magistrate, and further subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall appear before the concerned Trial Court on
each and every date of hearing fixed.
b. If the applicant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the
concerned Trial Court, and shall not leave the country without the
prior permission of the concerned Trial Court.
c. The applicant shall ordinarily reside at the address as per prison
records, and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned Investigating Officer [“IO”]/ Station House Officer
[“SHO”].
d. The applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the concerned
IO/SHO, and shall ensure that the said mobile number remains
operational and switched on at all times. The mobile number shall
not be changed, nor shall the phone be switched off, without prior
intimation to the IO/SHO.
e. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, nor visit, nor
offer any inducement, threat, or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
9
SLP (Crl.) No. 14347/2023, decided on 24.01.2024.
BAIL APPLN. 4376/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 23/03/2026 at 22:27:06
f. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence
nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice
the proceedings in the pending trial.
g. The applicant shall not commit any offence during the pendency of
the proceedings.
17. The bail application is disposed of in terms of the above.
18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of adjudication of the present bail application, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall
they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.
19. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information and necessary compliance.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 23, 2026
“Bhupi/KA”/
BAIL APPLN. 4376/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 23/03/2026 at 22:27:06