Delhi High Court – Orders
Aurangzeb Siddiqui (Presently In J. C.) vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 March, 2026
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 965/2026, CRL.M.A. 7361/2026 & CRL.M.A.
7362/2026
AURANGZEB SIDDIQUI
(PRESENTLY IN J. C.) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey,
Adv.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT
OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP
(through VC)
SI Vipin Malik, PS- Special
Cell
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 12.03.2026
1. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No.
455/2024 dated 02.10.2024, registered at Police Station Special Cell,
for offences under Sections 8/20/21/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act‘).
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on
01.10.2024, on the basis of secret information, a raid was conducted
wherein the applicant was apprehended along with the accused Tushar
and Himanshu. Recoveries of 5.220 Kg, 5.640 Kg and 5.240 Kg of
Cocaine/ Mephedrone were effected from the said accused persons
respectively. Thereafter, at their instance, a huge consignment of 547
Kg of Cocaine/ Mephedrone and 39.706 Kg of Hydroponic Ganja
were seized from the warehouse of the accused Tushar.
BAIL APPLN. 965/2026 Page 1 of 6
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 13/03/2026 at 22:49:11
3. During investigation, a total of 1290.967 Kg of
Cocaine/Mephedrone and 39.706 Kg Hydroponic Ganja was
recovered and a number of accused persons were arrested. As per the
prosecution, the accused persons were part of an international drug
cartel and the applicant was the personal driver of the father of the
accused Tushar Goyal. Allegedly, the applicant was lured by the
accused Tushar into drug trafficking on promise of quick financial
gains.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has clean antecedents and he has been falsely implicated in the present
case.
5. He submits that the applicant was merely the driver of the father
of the main accused Tushar Goyal and he was arrested when he was
waiting for the said accused. He submits that the contraband was
planted on the applicant by the police and even otherwise, there is no
material which evidences that the applicant was in conscious
possession of the contraband.
6. He submits that there is no call history or money trail that links
the applicant to the commission of crime. He submits that no
independent witness was joined at the time of seizure proceedings and
although the prosecution claims to have captured the seizure on video
recording, a copy of the recording has not been supplied to the
applicant.
7. He further submits that the grounds of arrest were also not
supplied to the applicant or any of his family members, whereby his
arrest in the instant case is illegal.
BAIL APPLN. 965/2026 Page 2 of 6
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 13/03/2026 at 22:49:11
8. He further submits that accused Tushar has remained on interim
bail for the past few months and another co-accused has already been
enlarged on bail by the Trial Court.
9. He submits that the applicant has been in custody since
02.10.2024 and the matter is still at the stage of arguments on charge.
He submits that the matter is proceeding before the Trial Court at
snail’s pace and the applicant should be granted bail on account of
period already spent in custody.
10. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the applicant. He
submits that the present case involves recovery of huge quantity of
contraband and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
attracted against the applicant.
11. He submits that the applicant was arrested at the spot and
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the personal
possession of the applicant.
12. He submits that the seizure proceedings have been duly
recorded in terms of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, and the same can only be proved in trial.
13. He further submits that the matter before Trial Court is now
expected to proceed expeditiously and the same was hindered
previously due to pending arrest of one of the accused persons, who
has since been arrested from Dubai.
14. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.
15. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application
for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether
there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar
BAIL APPLN. 965/2026 Page 3 of 6
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 13/03/2026 at 22:49:11
to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature
and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event
of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if
released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
threatened; etc.
16. In the present case, a recovery of 5.220 Kg of Cocaine/
Mephedrone was made directly from the applicant. Allegedly, further
recovery of 547 Kg of Cocaine/ Mephedrone and 39.706 Kg of
Hydroponic Ganja was effected at the instance of the applicant and
other accused persons. As recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband is involved in the present case, the rigours of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act are attracted. As provided under the Section, the Court
can grant bail only when the twin conditions stipulated in Section
37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are satisfied in addition to the usual
requirements for the grant of bail- (1) The court must be satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty
of such offence; and (2) That the person is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
17. It is asserted on behalf of the applicant that the contraband was
planted on him and there is nothing to attribute conscious possession
on the applicant. Doubt is sought to be cast on the recovery on account
of non-joinder of any independent witnesses as well as a copy of video
not being supplied.
18. As pointed out by the prosecution, although no independent
witness was associated, the search and seizure of contraband has been
duly videographed and the same forms part of the judicial record as it
has been uploaded on the e-Sakshya App. Whether the video is to be
supplied or not will be seen by the Trial Court, for which it is
BAIL APPLN. 965/2026 Page 4 of 6
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 13/03/2026 at 22:49:11
informed that an application is filed by the applicant, however, in the
opinion of this Court, the same alone will not ipso facto entitle the
applicant to grant of bail.
19. The applicant has neither denied his presence at the spot nor
that he was known to the accused Tushar, with whom he is alleged to
have been associated in procurement and distribution of narcotic
substances. The present case is not one where a taxi driver has been
implicated due to recovery from an unknown rider so as to claim
absolute lack of knowledge about the constituents of the hefty package
being handled by him.
20. While the applicant’s defence of him only being a driver acting
at behest of his employer or the recovery being planted on him will be
seen during trial, at this juncture, considering the recovery effected
from the personal possession of the applicant, his complicity in the
offence cannot be ruled out. Prima facie, the applicant has not been
able to make out any reasonable grounds to believe that he is not
guilty of the offence.
21. Insofar as the argument in respect of grounds of arrest not being
supplied to the applicant is concerned, as also noted by the learned
Trial Court while rejecting his bail, it was specifically mentioned in
the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act that there was reason to
believe that the applicant was in possession of narcotics/ psychotropic
drugs, etc. Even otherwise, the applicant has failed to show as to how
he is prejudiced by the alleged non-compliance after almost one and a
half years. Pertinently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 has also
clarified that while the procedural mandate of supply of written
grounds is mandatory, however, the mere absence of the same does
BAIL APPLN. 965/2026 Page 5 of 6
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 13/03/2026 at 22:49:11
not render the arrest illegal unless the accused is prejudiced due to
denial of fair opportunity.
22. It is also argued that the applicant is entitled to bail on the
ground of parity. A bare perusal of the order granting bail to the co-
accused Ravinder shows that his case stands on a significantly
different footing than that of the applicant. Unlike the applicant, no
recovery had been effected from the personal possession of the said
co-accused, and rather, recovery had been effected from a car owned
by him, which had been purportedly given to another co-accused.
Finding the case against the co-accused to be based on essentially
disclosure statements of other accused, the learned Trial Court was
persuaded to grant bail. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot
gain any benefit from the same.
23. The matter is stated to be at the stage of arguments on charge.
Although the applicant has spent over an year in custody already,
considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the applicant at this stage.
24. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are
for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not
influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
25. The present application is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 12, 2026
“SS”
BAIL APPLN. 965/2026 Page 6 of 6
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 13/03/2026 at 22:49:11