Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 9911
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
SAHIL SHARMA ALIAS MAXX – Appellant
Versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 3068/2025
For the Applicant : Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Ms. Megha Saroa, Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Anmol Sachdeva and Mr. Janak Raj Ambavat, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with SI Rohit, ANTF / Crime Branch
The court emphasized the necessity of independent witnesses and timely trial, asserting that prolonged incarceration may necessitate bail despite stringent conditions under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Conditions for grant of bail in case of offences involving commercial quantity - Conditions must be satisfied for granting bail. - Issues like discrepancies in identification of seized contraband and absence of independent witnesses raised, casting doubt on prosecution's case. Section 37 listings the requirements for bail which must be closely followed. (Paras 12, 15, 16, 20, 24)
(B) Delay in trial - Prolonged incarceration of the applicant due to delays in the criminal proceedings and the right to speedy trial must be recognized, calling for reinforcement to personal liberty overriding stringent bail conditions under NDPS Act. (Paras 22, 25)
(C) Previous convictions - Prior involvement in an NDPS case considered but noted that suspension of conviction had been ordered and the nature of the contraband was small quantity - deemed irrelevant to current bail application. (Paras 24, 26)
(D) Conditions for bail - The court imposed conditions to mitigate tampering with evidence and ensure compliance with trial proceedings. (Paras 28, 29)
Facts of the case:
Applicant seeks bail in a case involving significant recoveries of narcotic substances. The applicant has been in custody since 22.08.2023, and only charges framed, despite lengthy detention.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in evaluating the factors against prolonged detention and the prosecution's lack of corroborative evidence, leading to the conditional granting of bail.
Issues: Whether the discrepancies in evidence merit bail and the implications of prolonged incarceration on the applicant's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of independent witnesses and evidence of delay in trial overrode the strict requirements under the NDPS Act, justifying conditional grant of bail.
Result: Bail application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for bail citing significant narcotic recoveries. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claims of innocence and discrepancies challenging prosecution's evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. prosecution's stance on commercial quantity linked to applicant's profile. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. considerations for granting bail under stringent ndps act provisions. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. discrepancies in evidence raising doubts on prosecution's claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. delays in trial necessitating consideration for bail. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. conditions imposed for granting bail to mitigate risks. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 205/2023 dated 22.08.2023, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, for the offences under Sections 20 /22/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (‘NDPS Act’).
2. Briefly stated, it is alleged that on 21.08.2023, on the basis of secret information, the applicant was apprehended when he was travelling in a grey car towards Akhada, near Chaupal street.
Allegedly, a recovery of 67g of MDMA (found to be methamphetamine in FSL) was made from a polythene found in the applicant’s pocket. It is also alleged that the following recoveries were effected from the applicant’s car : 133g of MDMA kept under the driver’s seat in a white polythene, 1200g of charas kept in the glove box in a zip lock pouch and 2580g of ganja kept in a black polythene in the boot of the car. Thereafter, at the instance of the applicant, a recovery of 52g of MDMA@ecstacy was made from the flat of the applicant.
3. It is alleged that at the instance of the applicant, 6 riders who used to deliver contraband were arrested and recoveries were effected from two of the said drivers – Sonu and Chandan. Allegedly, a recovery of 53g of hybrid ganja and 1.87g of MDMA was made from co-accused Sonu and a recovery of 54g of hybrid ganja and 2g of MDMA was made from co-accused Chandan. Co-accused L. Jicko Meitei was also arrested at the instance of the applicant and a recovery of 4 Kg of ganja was made from him.
4. The applicant and co-accused Tanay Khatri (arrested on the applicant’s disclosure) disclosed regarding one Anand Singh @ Andy who used to facilitate the supply of contraband. The said co-accused Anand Singh @ Andy named one Lakshay Jain as the source of the contraband. Three tracking IDs were found on the phone of co- accused Lakshay. Two of these parcels were seized at FPO, Delhi on 20.10.2023 and 22.10.2023 respectively, and a recovery of 112g of Cannabis was made from each parcel respectively. The third parcel was seized at FPO, Mumbai on 28.10.2023 and a recovery of 105.7g of Cannabis was made from the same as well.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. He submitted that there is a discrepancy in the report of the field testing kit and FSL. He submitted that as per the prosecution, in the field testing kit, one of the contrabands seized from the applicant’s car tested positive for MDMA, however, the FSL report indicates that the seized contraband was methamphetamine, which casts doubt on the case of the prosecution.
7. He submitted that even though the alleged recovery happened in a public place, there are no independent witnesses and no endeavour was made by the prosecution to photograph or videotape the alleged recovery either.
8. He further submitted that the applicant was arrested on 22.08.2023 and only charges have been framed in the present case till date. He submitted that the trial is not likely to conclude in a timely manner.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the present applicant and submitted that the present case involves recovery of commercial quantity, whereby, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted against the applicant.
10. He submitted th
