$~2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 12, 2025

+ BAIL APPLN. 1552/2025

VIVEK KUMAR .....Applicant

Through: Mr. Vatan Tripathi, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP

for the State.

SI Jagbir, Anti Narcotics

Cell North. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present application is filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 192/2023 dated 25.03.2023, registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi, for offences under Sections 20/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(‘NDPS Act’).

2. The FIR was registered pursuant to a secret information received on 24.03.2023 that two persons, namely, Sonu Kumar and the applicant are involved in drug trafficking activities and would be coming in an auto rikshaw of one Mehboob Ali to Subzi Mandi area to supply a huge consignment of Ganja between 09:30 PM to 10:30 PM. It is alleged that a raiding party was constituted and the accused persons were apprehended in an auto rikshaw being driven by co-accused Mehboob Ali. On search, 20 kg of Ganja was recovered from the foot rest of

passenger seat of the Auto Rickshaw. During the course of interrogation, the disclosure statements made by the accused persons allegedly led to a further recovery of 290 kg of Ganja (that is, 125 kg and 165 kg of Ganja respectively from two different locations).

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent.

4. He submits that despite the fact that the recovery was made from an auto rikshaw in a public place, no public witness joined the search and seizure. He further submits that there is also no CCTV, video footage or photography to show that the recovery was in fact made from the applicant either. He submits that even if the case of the prosecution is taken at the highest, the applicant was merely a passenger in the auto rickshaw.

5. He submits that the applicant has been in custody since

25.03.2023 and charges are yet to be framed in the present case.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that large quantity of contraband has been recovered and thus the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. He stresses that recoveries were also made on the disclosure of the applicant and there is CDR connectivity between the applicant and other accused persons. He further submits that the bail application of co-accused Mehboob Ali has already been dismissed by this Court.

7. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.

8. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened;

etc.

9. It is unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

10. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was travelling in an Auto Rikshaw from which a recovery of 20 kg of Ganja was made. Allegedly, the disclosure of the applicant and other accused persons also led to a further recovery of 290 kg of Ganja.

11. Pertinently, even though the recovery from the auto rikshaw was effected in a busy public place on the basis of secret information, no public witnesses were joined by the prosecution and no photography or videography was conducted to corroborate the recovery either. Similarly, despite sufficient opportunity, no public persons were associated by the prosecution during the rec