An accused charged with an offence involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act shall not be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

BAIL APPLN. 2994/2023

Page 1 of 6

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 17.11.2023

Pronounced on: 22.12.2023

+

BAIL APPLN. 2994/2023

SALMAN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Sushma Sharma, Mr. Girish

Kumar

Sharma,

Mr.

Dhruv

Kumar Sharma, Ms. Aayushi

Gaur, Ms. Stuti Aggarwal and

Mr.

R.

Sahil,

Advocates

alongwith petitioner in person.

versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the

State with SI Mahavir, PS –

Daryaganj

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

The instant application under Section 439 read with Section 482

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on

behalf of applicant seeking regular bail in case FIR bearing no.

152/2022, registered at Police Station Daryaganj for offences punishable

under Sections 21/29/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:24.12.2023

15:09:52

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN. 2994/2023

Page 2 of 6

Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’).

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.03.2022,

pursuant to a secret information received informing that co-accused Arif

can be caught with smack near Mahavir Vatika, a raiding team had been

constituted, after following the prescribed procedure. On the same day,

at about 10:40 PM, secret informer had identified the co-accused Arif,

who was seen coming from NS Marg to Ansari road, Mahavir Vatika,

and was carrying a bag on his right shoulder. Thereafter, two persons

had come near Arif and had asked him whether he had brought smack

for them to sell. Immediately thereafter, the raiding team had surrounded

the three persons i.e. co-accused Arif, present applicant Salman, and co-

accused Naeem. After giving notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act and

calling the concerned ACP on the spot, the raiding team had carried out

the search of accused persons. Upon conducting search, the team had

found a plastic box inside the sports bag carried by co-accused Arif, in

which a plastic polythene of white colour was found, containing smack

(morphine) like substance. The team had then tested the substance using

NDPS testing kit and it was found to be morphine. The plastic polythene

containing the morphine had then been weighed, which was found to be

340 grams i.e. commercial quantity. All the three accused persons were

arrested on 26.03.2022. During investigation, it was revealed that co-

accused Arif had received the plastic box containing morphine from one

Parvez, who runs a juice shop in Delhi, and the box had been carried

from Shambhal, Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by one Arshad (co-accused),

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:24.12.2023

15:09:52

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN. 2994/2023

Page 3 of 6

who ferried passengers and goods from Shambhal to Delhi in his car.

Thereafter, Call Detail Records of co-accused Arif were obtained, and it

was found that on 24.03.2022, Arif had talked to co-accused Arshad.

Thereafter, co-accused Arshad had also been arrested, who had

disclosed that he was involved in carrying parcels of morphine from

Sambhal to Delhi, in his car, on a commission basis.

3.

Learned counsel for the present accused/applicant argues that the

applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.03.2022, but he has been

falsely implicated in the present case, and no recovery has been affected

from him. It is also stated that applicant is entitled to bail on the ground

of parity since the main accused Arif, from whom the recovery of

contraband was affected, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court vide order dated 28.07.2023. It is further stated that notice served

to applicant herein is defected since an option to get himself searched

before the nearest gazetted officer or Magistrate was given and not just

any gazet