Delhi High Court – Orders
Anil @ Kalu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4241/2025
ANIL @ KALU .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Hum Nashin Ahmed, Mr.
Imran Alam, Mr. Javed Saifi, Mr.
Tauqeer Hussain, Mr. Zainab, Mr.
Prakhar Singh & Mr. Md. Ashraf
Ali, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
for the State.
SI Amrendra, ANTF, Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 09.04.2026
1. By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks regular bail in
connection with FIR No. 31/2025, dated 30.01.2025, registered at Police
Station Crime Branch, Delhi, under Sections 21/25 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act“].
2. The prosecution has placed on record a status report dated
08.12.2025. The facts, as stated in the status report, are as follows:
a. On 29.01.2025, on the basis of the information received from an
informer, one Shiva (co-accused) was apprehended at SignatureBAIL APPLN. 4241/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 09/04/2026 at 21:31:34
Bridge, and was found to be in possession of 512 grams of heroin.
b. Shiva identified a vehicle standing nearby belonging to one Sagar
(another co-accused), from which a polythene packet was
recovered containing a pink powdery substance. Upon testing, the
substance was found to be heroin, which was weighed at 299
grams.
c. Shiva and Sagar were arrested on 21.04.2025.
d. During the course of investigation, it was found that Sagar and his
brother Rohit are operating a drug cartel with three other
individuals, which do not include the applicant.
e. On 04.04.2025, one Manav, alleged to be the source of the
contraband supplied to Shiva, was arrested, and a recovery of 106
grams was made from him.
f. The present applicant was arrested on 22.04.2025 in his village
Aliganj, on the basis of Manav’s disclosure statement, and 183
grams of smack was recovered from him.
g. Based on the applicant’s disclosure, one Shobhit Mishra, who was
stated to be his supplier, was apprehended, and 53 grams of crude
[used for preparing smack] as well as 54 grams of smack was
recovered from him.
3. Mr. Hum Nashin Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant,
submits as follows:
a. The alleged recovery from the applicant in the present case is of
183 grams of smack, which falls within range of intermediate
quantity [5 grams to 250 grams] which would not attract the
rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
BAIL APPLN. 4241/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 09/04/2026 at 21:31:34
b. Even proceeding on the basis that the recovery from all the co-
accused persons exceeds 250 grams and therefore falls within
commercial quantity, the applicant satisfies the tests laid down in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, on account of non-compliance with
Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. No public witness was
associated with the alleged recovery, and that even in the absence
of the public witnesses, no video recording or photograph has been
placed before the Court.
c. In the case of co-accused Sagar, the Special Court has granted bail,
even though the recovery from him was much higher than the
applicant. Mr. Ahmed seeks parity with co-accused Sagar, and four
other co-accused, who all have also been released on bail, except
co-accused Shiva from whom the individual recovery was much
higher than that of the applicant, i.e. 512 grams.
d. The applicant is in custody for a period of more than 11 months.
Although charge sheet has been filed, charges have not yet been
framed, and the prosecution has cited 33 witnesses, which gives
rise to an apprehension of a prolonged trial.
4. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
on the other hand, opposes the bail application, and submits as follows:
a. The total quantity seized from all co-accused is in excess of 250
grams, and thus constitutes a commercial quantity of recovery. He
submits that the twin conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act must
be applied.
b. As far as non-compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act is
concerned, Mr. Chauhan’s submits that the chargesheet records thatBAIL APPLN. 4241/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 09/04/2026 at 21:31:34
the seizure from the applicant has been video-graphed. He further
submits that this is a matter of trial, and the same is not to be taken
into account at this stage.
c. Mr. Chauhan submits that the Special Court has rightly rejected the
applicant’s case for parity, as he was declared a proclaimed
offender in another proceedings under the NDPS Act [FIR No.
35/2022, at P.S. Mayur Vihar under Sections 21/25/29 of the
NDPS Act]. He also submits that his involvement in an earlier FIR
for similar offences renders this case different from the other co-
accused persons.
5. In rejoinder, Mr. Ahmed submits that, although the chargesheet
contains an assertion that the seizure from the applicant was video-
graphed, no video recording has yet been placed before the Special Court.
With regard to FIR No. 35/2022, lodged at P.S. Mayur Vihar, Mr. Ahmed
submits that the applicant has been released on bail in that case, vide
order dated 26.08.2025. Although the nominal roll filed by the jail
superintendent indicates otherwise, Mr. Ahmed submits that this is
erroneous and a copy of the bail order has been placed on record, as
Annexure 4 to the bail application.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that,
having regard to the facts that the individual recovery from the applicant
was of an intermediate quantity, the argument of Mr. Ahmed that Section
37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to the present case, is plausible.
Although charges are yet be framed, at this prima facie stage, it may be
noted that the recovery from the applicant was from his village Aliganj,
and not by way of joint recovery, alongwith the other co-accused.
BAIL APPLN. 4241/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 09/04/2026 at 21:31:34
Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of this Court
in Chhalimuddin v. State NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN 3017/2024, dated
01.04.2025], and a judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and
Ladakh in Abdul Hamid v. Union Territory of J & K & Anr [BAIL APP
No. 261/2024, dated 07.04.2025] [hereinafter, “Abdul Hamid”]. In Abdul
Hamid, the High Court held that the question of whether the quantities of
contraband recovered from various accused persons can be clubbed on
the ground of common intention is a matter of trial.
7. In the present case, even proceeding on the basis that the Section
37 of the NDPS Act applies, the applicant claims parity with the case of
co-accused, who have been granted bail. In the case of co-accused Sagar,
the individual recovery from him exceeded the commercial quantity, but
the Special Court granted bail vide order dated 24.03.2025. The Court
considered several judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court,
including judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT
of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 352], which makes it clear that the Court
is required to take a prima facie view on the basis of the material on
record, and is not required, at the stage of bail adjudication, to come to a
conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The Special Court in Sagar’s case
found that Section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, as
independent witnesses had not joined. While such non-compliance may
not ultimately be held to vitiate the trial, for the purposes of bail, this
would be a relevant consideration.
8. In the present case also, public witnesses were not associated with
the recovery. Although it has been asserted in the chargesheet that the
seizure from the applicant was video-graphed, the video recording has not
BAIL APPLN. 4241/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 09/04/2026 at 21:31:34
been produced before the Special Court at this stage.
9. I am informed that the order granting bail to co-accused Sagar and
Manav have been challenged before this Court by way of CRL.M.C.
1687/2026 and CRL.M.C. 1700/2026. The said petitions have apparently
been filed only in March 2026, whereas they were granted bail by the
Special Court on 24.03.2025 and 08.09.2025 respectively. Suffice it to
state that those petitions will be decided on their own merits.
10. The only ground upon which the prosecution seeks to distinguish
the case of other co-accused from the present case, is that the applicant is
facing another trial for offences under the NDPS Act, being FIR No.
35/2022, registered at P.S. Mayur Vihar, in which he was declared a
proclaimed offender. However, the order of the Special Court dated
26.08.2025, in which he was granted bail in the very same FIR, has been
placed on record, and has not been challenged by the prosecution.
11. In the facts and circumstances noted above, I am of the view that
the involvement of the applicant in one other FIR is not conclusive. The
Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
[(2020) 11 SCC 648] has clearly held that prior criminal antecedents need
not, in every case, result in denial of bail to the accused. In my view, the
appropriate balance would be to impose stringent conditions to ensure
that the applicant is available for trial.
12. In the present case, the applicant has been in custody for almost
one year, and charges are yet to be framed. 33 witnesses have been listed
in the chargesheet, which makes expeditious culmination of trial
improbable.
13. In view of the fact that the recovery from the applicant individually
BAIL APPLN. 4241/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 09/04/2026 at 21:31:34
was prima facie of intermediate quantity, and the facts and circumstances
mentioned above, it is directed that the applicant be released on bail in
connection with No. 31/2025, dated 30.01.2025, registered at Police
Station Crime Branch under Sections 21/25 of the NDPS, subject to
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, and one surety in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, subject also to the following further conditions:
a. The applicant shall appear before the Special Court on each and
every date of hearing;
b. The applicant shall provide his permanent address to the Special
Court, as also the address where he is residing during the pendency
of the case. The applicant shall intimate the Investigating Officer
[“IO”], and file an affidavit before the Special Court, regarding any
change in residential address.
c. The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the concerned
IO/Station House Officer, which shall be kept in working condition
at all times. The mobile number shall not be switched off or
changed without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of
the trial;
d. The applicant will report to the jurisdictional police station at his
place of residence every Monday at 04:00PM, and will be released
within one hour, after completion of formalities.
e. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner
whatsoever;
BAIL APPLN. 4241/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 09/04/2026 at 21:31:34
f. The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of his
release.
14. The bail application is disposed of in terms of the above.
15. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are
solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall
neither influence the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 9, 2026
‘pv’ /AD/
BAIL APPLN. 4241/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 09/04/2026 at 21:31:34
