Delhi High Court – Orders
Mujabil vs Gnct Delhi on 6 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~6 & 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 140/2026
MUJABIL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Yasin, Mr. Dawneesh
Shaktnats, Ms. Sumaiya Khan and
Mr. Sami Ahmed, Advocates.
versus
GNCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, P.S. Kalkaji.
+ BAIL APPLN. 384/2026
SHAHID @ AABU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shan Ul Islam, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, P.S. Kalkaji.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 06.04.2026
1. By way of the present applications under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicants seek grant of
regular bail in connection with FIR No. 670/2024 dated 09.12.2024,
registered at Police Station Kalkaji, District South-East, New Delhi,
under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 [“the Act”].
BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 384/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:40:06
2. I have heard Mr. Mohd Yasin and Mr. Shan Ul Islam, learned
counsel for the applicants in BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 and BAIL APPLN.
384/2026, respectively, and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The State has also placed on record status reports.
4. The case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the status reports, is
that, on 09.12.2024, the applicants were apprehended while carrying a
black bag. Upon search, it was found that they were carrying 21.95
kilograms of “ganja” in the said bag. They were arrested on the same
day. Upon examination of their mobile phones, it was found that Shahid
@ Aabu [applicant in BAIL APPLN. 384/2026] had received
photographs of the narcotic substance from one Yunus @ Mukhiya. The
mobile phones also show Call Detail Record connectivity between the
applicants herein and co-accused Yunus @ Mukhiya. Yunus @ Mukhiya
is yet to be arrested.
5. In support of the present applications, Mr. Yasin and Mr. Islam
submit that the alleged recovery of the contraband substance in the
present case is of 21.95 kgs, which, even according to the Seizure Memo,
included ‘dried leaves and small branches’. They submit that the seized
substance in the present case does not answer to the statutory definition of
“ganja” and that, in any event, the quantity of contraband cannot be
determined, as the substance was admittedly weighed inclusive of leaves
and stalk, which do not constitute “ganja” as per the Act. In this
connection, they draw my attention to the definition of “ganja” in Section
2(iii)(b) of the Act, and the judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this
BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 384/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:40:06
Court in Ravina Kumari v. the State (NCT of Delhi)1, and Ashok Kumar v.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi2, as well as a judgment of this Court in
Manjay Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi3. Mr. Yasin has handed over a copy
of the said judgments, as well as the chargesheet and accompanying
documents, which are taken on record.
6. Mr. Chauhan, on the other hand, submits that the Forensic Science
Laboratory [“FSL”] report has already been received, which confirms that
the sampled goods are “ganja” within the meaning of the Act. The
quantity of ganja seized being over 20 kg, Mr. Chauhan further submits
that the rigours of Section 37 of the Act would apply.
7. The definition of “ganja” as provided in Section 2(iii)(b) of the
Act, reads as follows:
“(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant
(excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by
whatever name they may be known or designated;”
8. The Seizure Report dated 09.12.2024, which forms part of the
chargesheet, records that the bag was full of dried leaves and small
branches, which appeared to be ganja by smell and sight4. The
chargesheet also includes an order of the learned Magistrate’s Court dated
21.12.2024 at the time of sampling under Section 52A of the Act. In the
aforesaid order, it is recorded that a “muddy brown substance” was
produced before the Court, from which the samples were extracted. The
FSL report dated 21.02.2025 has not been referred to in the status reports
1
BAIL APPLN. 1256/2024, decided on 20.09.2024 [hereinafter, “Ravina Kumari”].
2
BAIL APPLN. 2962/2025 and connected matter, decided on 21.11.2025 [hereinafter, “Ashok
Kumar”].
3
BAIL APPLN. 4206/2025 and connected matter, decided on 19.03.2026 [hereinafter, “Manjay
Kumar”].
BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 384/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:40:06
filed by the State. However, a copy thereof also forms part of the
chargesheet. In the said report, the exhibit is described as “Dried greenish
brown coloured flowering and fruiting tops vegetative material, kept in a
plastic container, weight approx. 48.4gm”. Upon examination, it was
found to be “Ganja (Cannabis)”.
9. The order/judgments of this Court cited by Mr. Yasin deal with
similar situations, where the seized goods comprise a mixture of
“flowering buds and fruiting tops” as well as other materials like leaves,
stems, seeds, and stalk. The judgment in Ravina Kumari analyses the
definition of “ganja” as follows:
“17. From the definition, it is evident that flowering buds and fruiting
tops of the cannabis plant would be covered under section 2 (iii)(b) but
merely leaves /seeds and stalks would not form a part of the definition
of “Ganja” unless accompanied by the flowering and fruiting tops.
18. This can be represented accurately by the below Venn diagram:-
19. Thus, the intention of the Legislature appears to be clear that in
case of Ganja, if it is merely Category A i.e. a homogenous mixture of
flowering buds and fruiting tops, then the same would fall within the
meaning of “Cannabis”, however, if it is merely Category B i.e. a
homogenous mixture of seeds/leaves/stalks without the fruiting tops
and buds, then the same would not attract the provisions of the NDPS
Act.
20. Though the position with respect to homogenous mixtures i.e.
Category A & B is clear, there is often a conundrum surrounding the4
The Seizure Memo was recorded in Hindi, and has been translated in English by me.
BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 384/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:40:06
quantification of Category C, i.e. the overlap between Category A and
Category B constituting the heterogenous mixtures which include both
the flowering tops and fruiting buds, along with the stems/ leaves and
seed.
21. From the framework of the entire NDPS Act and a reading of S. 2
(iii)(b), it emerges that if the material seized is a heterogenous
mixture/Category C, constituting of Category A mixed with Category
B, the placebo material such as stalks/leaves/stems (Category B)
would not constitute an actual part of the drug and only the actual
content and weight of the narcotic drug (Category A) would be
relevant for determining whether it would constitute small quantity
or commercial quantity.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
26. Pertinently, the recovered quantity of about 24.145 Kg was just
4.145 kgs more than the commercial quantity. Since, the entire
substance including stems/stalks and dried leaves were weighed
together without quantifying the weight of the flowering or fruiting
tops, the quantity of ‘Ganja’ seized from the Applicant may be less than
commercial quantity so as to attract Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The
weight of actual Ganja recovered is a matter of trial.
27. It has been consistently held that if there is a prima facie
discrepancy in what was seized and what was analysed and weighed
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not
guilty of offences dealing in commercial quantity. Consequently, the
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for grant of regular bail,
would not become applicable as has been held in the case of Ibrahim
Khwaja Miya Sayyed (Supra)5.
28. In the case of Suresh Kumar (Supra)6, the Coordinate Bench of this
Court gave benefit to the accused under Section 20 (b) (C) to 20
(b)(ii)(B) by observing that the weight of the contraband was not
precise and the actual quantity of Ganja seized could not be
determined because the FSL reflected that seeds, which do not come
within the definition of Ganja, were weighed along with the flowering
and fruiting tops. Thus, when there is a doubt on the actual amount
of recovery of contraband, then this unexplained discrepancy would
result in a benefit accruing in favour of the bail applicant.
29. Similar observations have been made in the case of Rajesh Sharma
(Supra)7, Bettanayaka (Supra)8, Ratanlal (Supra)9 and Ratnesh
5
Ibrahim Khwaja Miya Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2873.
6
Suresh Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1209.
7
Rajesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 485.
8
Bettanayaka v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3916.
9
Ratanlal Kharadi v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6083.
BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 384/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:40:06
(Supra)10.
30. In light of the above discussion, it is settled that if there is the
discrepancy in weight, as in the present case, the same would be a
11
matter of trial.”
10. The same view was taken in Ashok Kumar, and followed in
Manjay Kumar. In Manjay Kumar, although this aspect was referred to,
the Court also came to a prima facie finding that the sampling procedure
adopted was not in consonance with the requirement of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and
Disposal) Rules, 2022.
11. Applying the binding judgment of this Court in Ravina Kumari to
the facts of the present case, it is evident that the materials seized were
not comprised only of “flowering or fruiting tops”, as the Seizure Memo
itself refers to ‘dried leaves and small branches’. The weight of the
contraband is 21.95 kilograms, which is only marginally in excess of the
threshold for commercial quantity of ganja [20 kilograms and above]. In
a similar situation, this Court in Ravina Kumari and Ashok Kumar
granted bail, holding that the application of Section 37 of the Act was
rendered doubtful.
12. Mujabil [applicant in BAIL APPLN. 140/2026] has been in
custody for approximately 1 year and 4 months, and Shahid @ Aabu
[applicant in BAIL APPLN. 384/2026] has been in custody for 1 year.
The charges have been framed, but prosecution evidence has not yet
commenced, for which 16 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution.
The trial is thus likely to take substantial time.
10
Ratnesh v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9883.
11
Emphasis supplied.
BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 384/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:40:06
13. It is stated by Mr. Chauhan that there are no prior involvements of
either of the applicants. He further states that Mujabil [applicant in BAIL
APPLN. 140/2026], was only 18 years of age at the time of arrest, and
Shahid @ Aabu [applicant in BAIL APPLN. 384/2026], has been
released on interim bail on three occasions, in respect of which, there is
no allegation of misuse of bail.
14. Having regard to the above factors, it is directed that the applicants
be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 670/2024 dated
09.12.2024, registered at Police Station Kalkaji, District South-East, New
Delhi, under Sections 20/29 of the Act, subject to furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- each, with one surety each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
and further subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicants shall appear before the learned Special Court on
each and every date of hearing.
b. If the applicants have passports, they shall surrender the same to
the concerned Trial Court, and shall not leave the country without
the prior permission of the concerned Trial Court.
c. The applicants shall ordinarily reside at the address as per prison
records, and shall not change the addresses without informing the
concerned Investigating Officer [“IO”]/ Station House Officer
[“SHO”].
d. The applicants shall furnish their mobile numbers to the concerned
IO/SHO, and shall ensure that the said mobile numbers remain
operational and switched on at all times. The mobile numbers shallBAIL APPLN. 140/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 384/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:40:06
not be changed, nor shall the phones be switched off, without prior
intimation to the IO/SHO.
e. The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, nor visit,
nor offer any inducement, threat, or promise to any of the
prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of
the case.
f. The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with
evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would
prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.
g. The applicants shall not commit any offence during the pendency
of the proceedings.
15. The bail applications are disposed of in terms of the above.
16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of adjudication of the present bail applications, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall
they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information and necessary compliance.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 6, 2026
SS/KA/
BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 384/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:40:06
