$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 27.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 11.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 13.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 4932/2025 AJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Kumar and Ms.

Shreya Yadav, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 0186/2025, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereafter „NDPS Act‟].

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 27.03.2025 at about 04:42 AM, PCR calls vide DD Nos. 13-A, 14-A and 16-A were received regarding illegal storage of narcotic substance at E-1/458, Nand Nagri, Delhi. The police reached the spot and conducted a search; however, no narcotic substance was found at that time. Surveillance and local enquiry in the area were thereafter continued. At about 12:10 PM on the same day, a secret informer informed the Investigating Officer (I.O.) that a person wearing a blue shirt and dark green lower was standing near House No. E-1/458, Nand Nagri and was carrying heroin for the purpose of sale. The information was reduced into writing and conveyed to the SHO and senior officers, following which a raiding team was constituted. At about 02:00 PM, the informer pointed out the suspected person, who was apprehended and disclosed his name as Ajay (the present applicant), resident of E- 1/458, Nand Nagri, Delhi. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him informing him of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, which he declined. However, it is stated that the ACP, Sub-Division Nand Nagri, was called to the spot and the search was conducted in his presence. During the search, one white polythene containing brown powder was recovered from the right pocket of the dark green lower worn by the present accused. On testing with a field testing kit, the substance was found to be heroin. On weighing, the gross weight was 252.37 grams including the polythene (2 grams), and the net weight of heroin was found to be 250.37 grams, which falls within commercial quantity. The narcotic substance was then sealed with the seal of “MK”, marked as Mark „A‟, and seized vide seizure memo. Photographs and videography of the proceedings were also conducted through the e-evidence application. The accused was arrested on 27.03.2025 and two days‟ police custody was obtained for tracing the source of supply; however, despite efforts, the source of the contraband could not be traced.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the alleged substance recovered from the present applicant is only slightly above the intermediate quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be invoked in the present case. It is also contended that the applicant has no previous involvement in any criminal case and has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further argued that there are several discrepancies in the prosecution case, including discrepancy regarding the actual weight of the alleged recovery from the applicant, which renders the prosecution case doubtful. It is therefore prayed that the present applicant be granted regular bail, particularly since he has remained in judicial custody for more than 11 months.

4. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the present bail application and contends that the allegations against the present accused/applicant are serious in nature. It is argued that the applicant was apprehended with more than 250 grams of heroin, which falls within the category of commercial quantity, and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are cle