$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 19.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 1998/2025, CRL.M.A. 16274/2025 & CRL.M.A.

16275/2025 SAQLAIN RAZA KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Meghan, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Narender Singh.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.76/2024 of PS Crime Branch for offence under Section 20/25/29 NDPS Act.

1.1 This bail application came up for the first hearing on 26.05.2025 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned before different benches. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Narender BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 1 of 5 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified GIRISH D 2 6 . 9 N 5 a . : 4 f c 3 .2 = 9 0 I 6 N = 2 , 8 c o 4 6 = 0 fb H 1 4 d IG 8 d 3 H 8 5 8 C d 9 O 4 b 3 U 2 5 R 7 f a T 9 7 7 O 7 6 F b 2 2 6 D f c E 6 a L 5 c H f c I a , , e o 4 u a = fe H c I 4 G 5 H 5 COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, Digitally Signed KATHPALIAp s 9 e 9 o r 6 s ia t b a l 4 N lC 0 u f o m 8 d 0 b e c = e b r 1 d = 1 2 d 0 e 3 0 e e 0 e 8 3 6 6 , 0 7 s 4 t 9 = 0 6 2 D 4 c e 5 4 l 1 8 h e 7 c 9 4 6 5 5 c f 0 8 7 0 b 1 5 e d 2 1 6 5 f 5 a 7 , 0 By:DIKSHA RAWAT c D n a = te G : I 2 R 0 IS 2 H 6 . K 0 A 3. T 1 H 9 P 1 A 8 L :0 IA 8 :22 -07'00'

Singh.

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that on the basis of secret information, the police party intercepted a car, in which were two occupants, namely Nibash Biswas and Saurabh Singh. On being searched, 80 kg of ganja was recovered from that car. The accused/applicant is registered owner of that car. The role ascribed to the accused/applicant is of a conspirator under Section 29 NDPS Act and as regards evidence of the alleged conspiracy, the investigator collected material according to which the accused/applicant along with the other two co-accused made three trips to Odisha prior to being apprehended and they stayed in the same hotel.

3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that there is no sufficient material to convict him. Most significantly, learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that the accused/applicant was never furnished grounds of arrest, which is a serious violation of his constitutional right under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Narender Singh opposes the bail application on the ground that the quantity of contraband recovered from the accused/applicant is a commercial quantity, so twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act would come into play. As regards supply of grounds of arrest, it is contended by learned APP that the same were supplied through the application filed before the learned trial court for first remand.

BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 2 of 5 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4afe c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, Digitally Signed KATHPALIAp se o r s ia ta lN lC u o m d b e= er 1 = 1 d 0 3 0 e 0 8 3 6 , 7 st 9 = 6 D 4 e 5 l 1 h e i, c 45c07b5d1 By:DIKSHA RAWAT 5 0 5 1 7 e2 0 6 9 f 9 a 6 , b c 4 n 0 = f G 80 IR c I b SH d2 K e A e T e H 60 P 4 A 0 L 2 IA c4 87965f8 Signing Date:19.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.19 18:08:12 -07'00'

5. In the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2025 INSC 1288, the Supreme Court recapitulated the legal position as regards the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused and held thus:

“24. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), of which, one of us was a member (B.R. Gavai, J., as he then was), this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the above ju