Delhi High Court – Orders
Mohit Kumar vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 August, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010264232026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2307/2026
MOHIT KUMAR .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Durgesh Gupta and Mr. Kamal
Pundir, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 03.08.2026
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 306/2025 dated 14.10.2025,
registered at Police Station Crime Branch, South-West Delhi, for offences
under Sections 20/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act“), and, in substance, impugns the order dated
03.06.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, in SC
No. 229/2026, whereby the applicant’s anticipatory bail application was
dismissed.
2. The prosecution case is that the main accused, Rohit Kumar Sharma,
was apprehended on the intervening night of 13-14.10.2025 near Janakpuri,
Delhi, with recovery, from him and from a subsequent search of his
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 04/08/2026 at 20:40:46
residence and a car parked outside it, of an aggregate 21.512 kg of
hydroponic Ganja, i.e., commercial quantity under the Schedule to the
NDPS Act.
3. The applicant, cousin of the main accused, is stated to have been
named in the disclosure statement of Rohit Kumar Sharma as having
received the consignment from him at Guwahati Airport on 09.10.2025 and
carried it to Delhi by train, a sequence which the prosecution states is
corroborated by the applicant’s Call Detail Records (“CDR”). Notices issued
to the applicant on three occasions between February and May 2026 went
unserved, following which non-bailable warrants came to be issued against
him.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused in the
FIR is Rohit Kumar Sharma and the present applicant is his cousin. The
applicant had visited, at the relevant point of time, for darshan at Guwahati.
The applicant has been implicated in the instant case only on the disclosure
statement, which is not admissible.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that on 14.10.2025, the
applicant was with the Police and was interrogated for around 8 to 10 hours.
After 14.10.2025 till February 2026, the Police made no effort either to
collect any further evidence or to take the applicant into custody. He
contends that the CDR relied upon merely reflects that the applicant is the
cousin of the main accused, and there is no other evidence against the
applicant. It is further contended that the non-bailable warrants were issued
at the wrong address, whereas the applicant is residing in Delhi, and this
ought not to weigh against him.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has
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 04/08/2026 at 20:40:46
relied upon the decisions passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit
Kumar Naik vs. State of Odisha1; Rajesh Bhagat vs. The State of West
Bengal2; Sukhminder Singh @ Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana
and Anr.3; Vijay Singh vs. the State of Haryana4; Bashira Firoz Shaikh vs.
the State of Maharashtra5, and the decisions passed by this Court in the
case of Joy Mitra vs. Narcotics Control Bureau Delhi6, and another
decision passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in the case of
Afjal vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh7 to contend that pre-arrest protection
has been extended by constitutional courts in comparable circumstances,
where the implication of the accused rested solely upon the disclosure
statement of a co-accused.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the applicant is a member
of a well-organised drug syndicate active in the Delhi-NCR region and
actively participated in smuggling hydroponic weed from Guwahati to Delhi
and that he was served three notices but deliberately did not join the
investigation. It is also submitted that there is CDR connectivity between the
applicant and the main accused establishing prima facie culpability on the
part of the applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The recovery in the present case, being 21.512 kg of hydroponic
ganja, is admittedly commercial quantity, and it is the rigour of Section 37
of the NDPS Act that must govern the present application. The Supreme
1
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 16697/2025, order dated 16.04.2025.
2
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 796/2025, order dated 07.04.2025.
3
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 6811/2024, order dated 15.05.2024.
4
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 1266/2023, order dated 17.05.2023
5
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 13172/2024, order dated 30.09.2024
6
BAIL APPLN. 372/2024, order dated 29.04.2025.
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 04/08/2026 at 20:40:46
Court in Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal8 observed that
anticipatory bail in NDPS matters must be granted only in the “rarest of
rare” circumstances due to the statutory embargo.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant’s principal submission is that the
applicant stands implicated only upon the disclosure statement of the main
accused, which, following Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu9, is
inadmissible in evidence, and that Call Detail Record connectivity between
cousins is unremarkable.
11. This submission does not, in this Court’s view, hold good on the facts
of the present case, for two reasons. First, the material against the applicant
is not confined to the bare disclosure statement; it is stated to be
corroborated by CDR data that places the applicant in Guwahati on the very
date and at the very hour of the alleged handover, and reflects his onward
departure the same afternoon, a sequence that, prima facie, tracks the
movement of the consignment rather than a mere kinship connection.
12. Second, the question of whether a confessional statement recorded
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible at trial is distinct from the
threshold question of whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest protection
at the investigation stage. The Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v.
Samarth Kumar10, was confronted with a similar situation, whereby the
respondents therein had been implicated only on the strength of the
disclosure statement of a co-accused, with no recovery whatsoever effected
from them, and they had sought to press the benefit of Tofan Singh (supra)
7
2025:MPHC-IND:16878
8
(2008) 13 SCC 305
9
(2021) 4 SCC 1.
10
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 2087.
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 04/08/2026 at 20:40:46
in support of their claim to pre-arrest bail.
13. The Supreme Court set aside the grant of pre-arrest bail in those
circumstances, holding, in effect, that the concession flowing from Tofan
Singh (supra), namely, that a Section 67 statement is not admissible as a
confession, is a matter that may be urged at the stage of a regular bail
application, or at the conclusion of trial, but does not, without more,
translate into an entitlement to anticipatory bail at the threshold stage of
investigation. Paragraph No. 8 of Samarth Kumar (supra) is reproduced as
under:-
“8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage
of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at
the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final
hearing after conclusion of the trial”.
14. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances and the
applicant’s complicity in the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the
applicant on anticipatory bail
15. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are
confined to the disposal of the present application and shall not be construed
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be decided
uninfluenced by anything stated herein, at the appropriate stage.
16. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
AUGUST 3, 2026
aks/nk
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 04/08/2026 at 20:40:46
