Delhi High Court – Orders
Hussain vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) on 7 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~3 & 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2875/2023 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 1701/2025
HUSSAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nipun katyal with Mr. Manan
Sharma, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2651/2024
ASIM KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. U A Khan with Mr. Tushar
Upadhyaya, Mrs. Rizwana Khana and
Mrs. Abda Niyazi, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 07.07.2026
1. The applicants have filed these applications for grant of regular bail in
connection with FIR No.607/2021 registered for offence under Sections
21/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
[NDPS Act].
2. There are three accused persons. Out of three, one has already been
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 08/07/2026 at 21:35:21
enlarged on regular bail in terms of order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the
Special Court. The Court while granting bail to the said accused had prima
facie considered the violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS
Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, however, in the instant
applications confined their submissions to the extent of long incarceration of
the present two applicants. It is contended that the applicant – Hussain has
already suffered more than four years six months incarceration, whereas,
applicant – Asim Khan has suffered almost five years’ incarceration.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants have brought the
attention of the Court to various decisions passed by the Supreme Court
where without going into the seriousness of the allegations, the Courts have
enlarged the accused on regular bail on the basis of long incarceration.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants have placed all those
judgments on record.
5. This Court during the pendency of the applications vide order dated
20.01.2025 was not impressed by three principal arguments out of four made
by the applicants on that date. The Court, however, bearing in mind the
principles laid down in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha1, was of the
opinion that the continuous long incarceration may tilt in favour of the
applicant. The matter was, however, adjourned from time to time and the
report from the concerned Court regarding progress of the trial was also
called for. The applicant in the interregnum has also approached the
Supreme Court and the Court vide order2 dated 29.06.2026 directed for
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109
2
SLP (Crl.) 11518/2026
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 08/07/2026 at 21:35:21
disposal of the present bail application.
6. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the order dated 28.01.2026
passed in Chintan Rajubhai v. State of Maharashtra3. The observations of
the Supreme Court in paragraph nos.5 to 10 are extracted as under:
“5. We do not undermine the seriousness of the alleged crime. We are mindful
of the fact that the prosecution is for the offence punishable under Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985. At the same time, we should
not overlook the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial
prisoner past 3 years and 6 months and prosecution intends to examine as
many as 159 witnesses. Examination of 159 witnesses or even 50% of the
same is going to take a pretty long time. At times, we wonder why prosecution
wants to examine so many witnesses and thereby prolong the trial and delay
the same. We have observed in number of orders that the prosecution should
examine important witnesses and try to establish its case. There is no point in
multiplying the witnesses on one and the same issue.
6. Be that as it may, since the Special Public Prosecutor could be said to the
In-charge of the trial, we have to leave it to his better discretion.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has manifold contentions
to raise in so far as the merits of the case is concerned. However, we do not
want to go into the merits of these contentions at this point of time.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice that
there are cases almost 10 years old pending in the Trial Court as on date.
9. In the overall view of the matter, we have been persuaded to exercise our
discretion in favour of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to terms and
conditions that the Trial Court may deem fit to impose. However, if the
prosecution wants a particular condition to be imposed to safeguard its
interest, it shall be open for the Public Prosecutor, In-charge of the trial to
request the Trial Court to impose such condition.”
7. In another decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. Government of
NCT of Delhi4, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 18.03.2026, granted
bail to the accused from whose rented godown 351.6 kg of poppy straw was
recovered. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the accused had
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 924
4
SLP (C rl.) 21306/2025; Dated 18.03.2026
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 08/07/2026 at 21:35:21
remained in incarceration for more than three years, had no prior criminal
antecedents, and that only 11 out of 26 prosecution witnesses had been
examined. In the present case also, it is found that applicants have
undergone incarceration for more than 4 years and there is no criminal case
pending against the applicants. The observations made by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) are extracted as under:
“It is not in dispute that the appellant has been under incarceration
for more than three years and there are no prior criminal antecedents
in which he was involved. We have been informed that only eleven of
twenty six witnesses have been examined.”
8. In the case of Suman S.K @ Samirul Islam v. The State of West
Bengal5, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 01.03.2024, notwithstanding
the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS, granted bail to the accused. While
doing so, the Supreme Court took into consideration the prolonged
incarceration of the accused and the fact that the charges had only recently
been framed, fifteen witnesses were yet to be examined and, therefore, the
trial was likely to take considerable time, thereby recognising the accused’s
right to a speedy trial.
9. In the instant case, it is noticed that only ten out of twenty-nine
prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is, thus, evident that there is
no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. At this stage,
this Court does not deem it necessary to burden the present order by
referring to the various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well
as of this Court.
10. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced on behalf of the
applicants is that their prolonged incarceration, without any delay being
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 08/07/2026 at 21:35:21
attributable to them, should by itself constitute a sufficient ground for grant
of regular bail. It is submitted that the alleged offence is punishable with
imprisonment ranging from ten to twenty years along with fine. It is further
contended that none of the applicants has any criminal antecedents and that
they have remained in custody for a period ranging from four to five years.
11. Accordingly, the applicants are granted regular bail subject to the
terms and conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Special Judge.
12. The bail applications stand disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 7, 2026
Tr/SA
5
SLP(Crl.) 14415/2023
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 08/07/2026 at 21:35:21
