Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hemant Bichwe Alias Hemant Devdeep … vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 19 March, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-230-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-230-2026
JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON
RESERVED PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR
ON ON FULL
12.03.2026 19.03.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 19.03.2026
Hemant Bichwe @ Hemant Devdeep Bichwe ...Petitioner
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate and
Mr. Aditya Giri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Special Public Prosecutor
for the respondent-NCB.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
NCB Crime/File No.VIII/31/DZU/2023
Under Sections 8, 22, 23 & 29 of NDPS Act
Registered at Delhi Zonal Unit, NCB, Delhi
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the case captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking
regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 8(X) of the bail petition and custody certificate dated 27.01.2026, the
petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State
“On 13.06.2023, secret information was received by the NCB Delhi Office, that a
Speed Post article with Tracking ID No. EH013040706IN destined for DLF
Phase-III Gurugram was suspected to be containing narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances and the same was lying at the Post office Minar Gate,
Palwal. The NCB reached the said Post Office and took the parcel in their
possession and upon search in front of independent witnesses, it was found to
contain 50 LSD Blots weighing 0.85 gms. The name of the sender was Kishan
1
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
CRM-M-230-2026 2
Kumar, resident of Palwal and the receiver’s name was Gagan Panda resident of
Gurugram and the article was booked by Mohit at Main Post office, Minar Gate,
Palwal, Haryana on 09.06.2023.. On verification, both the addresses were found
untraceable.
c. On follow-up investigation it was revealed that the person (Mohit) who booked
the above-mentioned post article No. EH013040706IN on 09.06.2023 also booked
other post articles on 15.06.2023 with tracking ID EH013043588IN and
EH013040811IN (both addressed to Aryadeb Ghosh) destined to Karad, Satara
Maharashtra and one envelope bearing Indian post tracking ID EH013040825IN
(addressed to Petitioner/Accused Hemant Devdeep Bachhwe) destined to Nagpur,
Maharashtra.
From the postal envelope with tracking ID EH013043588IN which was delivered
by the postman to Aryadeb Ghosh 50 LSD Blots (weight 0.85 Grams)were seized
from his Flat Number-T-2, Agashiv Apartment, Malkapur Karad, Satara,
Maharashtra on 21.06.2023 by the NCB team during a follow-up investigation.
From the postal envelope with tracking ID EH013040825IN which was in
possession of Petitioner/Accused Hemant Devdeep Bachhwe- 3.18 gm MDMA
and from the envelope with tracking ID No- RT479604315IN which was lying in
the house of Hemant Devdeep Bachhwe 25 LSD Blots (weight 0.24 Grams) were
seized on 22.06.2023 by the NCB team during a follow-up investigation.
From the postal envelope with tracking ID EH013040811IN which was addressed
to Aryadeb Ghosh. However, the envelope was returned to the Sub Post Office,
Minar Gate, Palwal and on search in front of Aryadeb Ghosh and independent
witnesses 50 LSD Blots (weight 0.85 Grams) were recovered on 26.06.2023 by
the NCB team during a follow-up investigation.
d. That for further investigation CCTV footage of Main Post Office, Minar Gate,
Palwal was taken into possession and it was revealed that it was Mohit who
booked the postal articles on 09.06.2023 and 15.06.2023.
e. That on 04.08.2023 NCB filed an application for issuance of a production
warrant of Mohit who was lodged in Tihar jail in connection with NCB crime No-
VIII/34/DZU/2023 for interrogation. Mohit was interrogated and arrested after
due permission of the Hon’ble Court on 29.09.2023.
f. That during the statements Mohit disclosed that the seized contraband was
booked by him at the direction of his associate Naveen Fogat.
g. That on 29.09.2023 NCB filed an application for issuance of a production
2
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
CRM-M-230-2026 3
warrant of Naveen Fogat who was lodged in Tihar jail in connection with NCB
Crime No-VIII/16/DZU/2023 & VIII/34/DZU/2023 for interrogation. Naveen
Fogat was interrogated and arrested after due permission of the Hon’ble Court on
13.10.2023.
h. That during police remand Naveen Fogat was again interrogated and he
tendered his voluntary statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act on 14.10.2023,
15.10.2023, and 16.10.2023 wherein, he disclosed that he started a drugs
business in the year 2021 he was inspired by various documentaries and web
series i.e. how to sell drugs online and shiny flakes. He further disclosed that his
business name is “Zambada Cartel” and he managed all online work and
interacted with customers by putting advisement online through the dark web and
Mohit managed offline work such as receiving and shipping the drugs parcels, he
purchased LSD & MDMA through Dark web from Gama Gobline which was sent
by him in parcels and Dr. Seeiss from South Africa and he used crypto currency
for sale & purchase of Drugs and also disclosed other incriminating facts during
statements. He used to connect with buyers of drugs through the session app,
wiker ID & dark web using “Zambada Cartel” as his user ID.
That Naveen Fogat initially was arrested in NCB Crime No VIII/16/DZU/2023
(Recovery 807 LSD Blots weighing 13.47gms and 44.70gms MDMA) &
VIII/34/DZU/2023 (Multiple commercial recoveries under NDPS).
j. That Electronic gadgets/ Mobiles of all accused were seized and sent to SIFS
for digital data extraction, Data from the electronic gadgets/Mobiles was
received. On the analysis of the data recovered from the said devices, various
incriminating chats between all the accused persons in connection with seized
contraband in the present case were also found.
6 That in the present case, the Petitioner/accused Hemant Devdeep Bachhwe is
actively and intentionally involved in procuring a commercial quantity of
Psychotropic substances Le. he was found in conscious possession of 3.18 grams
of MDMA and another 25 LSD blots weighing 0.24 grams from the house of the
petitioner/accused.
7. That on the analysis of the data recovered from the Petitioners mobile it has
transpired that the Petitioner tried to procure Drugs and Psychotropic substances
from 3 suppliers namely “Zambada Cartel” (3.18gms MDMA), “The Indian Land
Exchange” (25LSD blots) and “Myplugg”.
8. That the screenshot of chat between the Petitioner/Accused Hemant Devdeep
Bichhwe and “Zambada Cartel” & “Theindianlandexchange” ordering MDMA
3
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
CRM-M-230-2026 4
and LSD blots respectively along with certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act are annexed herewith for the perusal of the Hon’ble Court as Annexure R-4.
9. That a perusal of the chat of Petitioner/accused Hemant Devdeep Bachhwe
with supplier ‘Zambada Cartel’ would show that since April 2023 the petitioner
has asked for the catalogue of drugs from this supplier8 times ie. on 2nd April,
6th May, 16th May, 31 May, 1st June, 14th June, 19th June & 20th June and this
supplier has replied by sending his latest menu. Then again on 7th June at 4:06
PM Petitioner/Accused messaged ‘Zambada Cartel” “Please send catalogue” and
at about 10:30 PM Zambada Cartel’ replies and shared his June 2023 menu.
After going through the menu the petitioner sent a message to Zambada Cartel on
9th June at 1:13 AM saying “Would like to order 2g mdma (113+5=118)”
thereafter petitioner sends an amount of 118 USDT(crypto currency) to Zambada
Cartel thereafter the petitioner accused sends his complete address with his
mobile number to Zambada Cartel and asking to “Please send by India Post as
DTDC is not reachable here I have to travel a long way to nearest DTDC branch
to get the parcel”. Zambada cartel replied back on 9th June at 2:47 AM
confirming the order and saying “Yes we currently one ship using India post”,
then the petitioner sent a message to Zambada Cartel saying “Thanks and
regards” and asked “Would you be so kind as to send a free sample of something”
and the “Zambada Cartel’ replies at 8:43 PM “Its already shipped” “Will share
tracking soon” and the petitioner replies “No Problem. Thanks”.
On 11th June at 8:51 PM petitioner sent a message asking Zambada Cartel “Hey
respected vendor, may I ask for tracking id. Also much much love and
appreciation for you. You have been great and consistent at all times. You are
appreciated very much” and on 11th June at 10:36 PM zambada cartel replies
back “EH013040825IN” “India post”. Thereafter on 15th June at 6:19 PM
petitioner inquired “Hey parcel is stuck at NSH since 2 days. Is there anything to
worry” and Zambada Cartel replies “No need to worry sometimes no updates
directly delivery happens” The Petitioner acknowledges the message of Zambada
Cartel, thereafter again on 19th June and 20th June Petitioner/Accused messaged
‘Zambada Cartel’ “Please send catalogue” and on 20th June ‘Zambada Cartel’
replies and shared his June 2023 menu.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner after coming to know on
6th May 2023 that the supplier “Zambada Cartel” is on vacation mode till 15th
May 2023, very eagerly texted the supplier “Zambada Cartel” on the next day
itself, that is, 16th May 2023.”
4. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the
NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
4
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
CRM-M-230-2026 5
5. The petitioner’s counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.
6. The petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection
whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the
petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a
sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the
NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or
commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file
an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Special Judge or Sessions Court
having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and
may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.
8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
REASONING:
9. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of
S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin
conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
10. Per the custody certificate dated 27.01.2026 the petitioner’s custody in this case is
of 02 years 07 months & 01 day.
11. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation,
the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section
37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1.
12. It shall be relevant to refer to the following judicial precedent.
13. In In Shince Babu v. The State of Kerala, decided on 21 Feb 2024,
MANU/SCOR/27340/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The prosecution case is that Accused No.1 (Liju) was found travelling
in a private bus from Cherthala to Arookutty and contraband MDMA,
weighing 138.750 gms, was recovered from his conscious possession. The
said contraband was procured by Accused No.1 with the help of Accused
No.2 from Bangalore. The petitioner is nominated as Accused No.4 in the
crime. He was arrested on 11.04.2022. The petitioner was granted bail by
the Trial Court on 20.09.2022 but on a petition filed by the State of Kerala,
1
Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on
13 July 2023
5
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
CRM-M-230-2026 6
challenging the bail order, the High Court cancelled the petitioner’s bail on
13.06.2023. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply afresh
before the Sessions Court. The petitioner again applied for bail but his
prayer was declined by the Trial Court on 07.07.2023. The petitioner
approached the High Court but his first bail application was dismissed on
14.08.2023. His second bail application was turned down by the High Court
on 09.10.2023. Meanwhile, Accused No.2 was granted bail by the High
Court on 11.10.2023. Seeking parity with the co-accused, the petitioner
moved third bail application, which has been rejected by the High Court
vide the impugned order dated 09.11.2023.
[3]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the
material placed on record.
[4]. It may be seen from para 6 of the impugned order that the High Court,
while declining bail to the petitioner, was largely influenced by the fact that
a huge quantity of contraband, which falls in the category of ‘commercial’,
was recovered and as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
attracted. On a specific query, it is not disputed by learned State counsel that
no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the
petitioner. In such circumstances, it is difficult for us to apply the twin test
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the petitioner’s prayer for
bail.
[5]. Be that as it may, the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2022 except
for the period from 20.09.2022 to 27.06.2023 when he remained on bail
pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court/Sessions Court.
[6]. It seems that the investigation is complete and the conclusion of trial
will take some reasonable time. The petitioner’s co-accused are already on
regular bail/default bail. As per the record, there are no criminal antecedents
of the petitioner.
[7]. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances but without
expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
[8]. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail subject to
his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
[9]. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and
every date of hearing, failing which it shall be taken as a misuse of
concession of bail granted to him today by this Court.
14. In Sohrab Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13 Aug 2024, SLP
(Crl.) 7115-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Cort holds,
The petitioner is an accused for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act. His bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already
undergone about one year and four months in jail. The petitioner and
coaccused were found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder each of
which commercial quantity is 50 grams.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the
entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case
of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer of the
petitioner is allowed.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the
usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court.
6
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
CRM-M-230-2026 7
15. In Ajay Khatri v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 20-03-2025, SLP (Crl) No.
1228-2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
The case of the prosecution is that 6600 Alprazolam Tablets weighing 818.4
grams have been recovered from his possession. He has already undergone
more than one year in jail.
Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner, we are of the
opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the
prayer for bail is allowed.
16. In Bhadresh Kumar Patel v. Union of India, SLP (Crl) 2622-2025, decided on 29-
07-2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The petitioner is involved in an NDPS case for supplying 1500 packets
of Pseudoephendrine tablets. The petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023 and
is in jail ever since then. Though, the trial has commenced but, only one
witness out of 12 witnesses has been examined, meaning thereby that the
trial is likely to take sufficient time for completion.
[3]. The possession of psychotropic substance would be an offence only if it
is in contravention of the statutory provisions or the prescribed rules.
[4]. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it
appropriate to enlarge petitioner on bail.
17. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the
case’s merits, and considering the petitioner’s pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs,
coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not
justified at this stage, subject to the terms and conditions of this order. However, this
order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court’s official webpage.
CONDITIONS:
18. Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing
bonds of Rs. 10 lac to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court and due to
unavailability before any nearest Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate/ Ilaqa
Magistrate.
19. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
20. The petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, and if he does so, the
State shall have the right to apply for cancellation of bail.
21. The petitioner shall mention his current address, phone number, e-mail, if any, and
present address, native address, and in case of change, he shall inform the SHO of the
7
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
CRM-M-230-2026 8
police station concerned through a registered letter by mentioning the case number.
Additionally, he shall also inform the concerned Court before whom the bonds were
furnished.
22. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to
protect the members of society as well as the integrity of the country, and incapacitating
the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report,
discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of
firearms. This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of
probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such,
it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction. Given the nature of the allegations
and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all
weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license, to the concerned
authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of
compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be
entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided that this is
otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill
confidence in society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses
and repeating the offense.
23. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform
and ensure that the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of
NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para
29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that
“The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that
they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The
courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the
necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of
rights and liberties must be eschewed.”
24. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP
(Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if
the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail
granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the
necessary consequences.”
25. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner
repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of
imprisonment for more than three years, the State shall file an application to revoke this
bail before the trial Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the
authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.
8
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
CRM-M-230-2026 9
26. Any observation made hereinabove is tentative and is not an expression of opinion
on the case’s merits, and it shall have no bearing on the trial or on the case of the co-
accused, and the trial Court shall not advert to these comments.
27. It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in
any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above.
28. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020,
decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in
paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been
granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any
delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of
sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public
Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty
granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification,
must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.”
29. Given the above, the impugned order is set aside and petition is allowed in terms
mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
19.03.2026
Anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned YES
Whether reportable NO
9
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-03-2026 05:04:37 :::
