$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 06.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 27.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 28.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 3211/2025 DEEPAK KHURANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr Adv. with Mr. Harish Chand, Mr. Anant Chittoria, Mr. Deepak Ahlawat and Mr. P.C. Arya, Advs.

versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shilpa Singh, SPP and Ms.

Priyam Agrawal, Advs.

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. RC- 35/2022/NIA/DLI, registered at Police Station National Investigation Agency, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21(c)/23(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that a consignment of liquorice roots (Mulethi), which had been imported from Afghanistan, had been intercepted, and upon inspection, a total of 102.784 kilograms of heroin had been recovered concealed therein. The said consignment had allegedly been imported by accused Vipin Mittal, in furtherance of a conspiracy involving other co-accused persons. During the course of investigation, it had been revealed that the conspiracy to smuggle the aforesaid contraband had been hatched in late 2021 and was executed thereafter. It had further emerged that the operation had been masterminded by one of the co- accused from abroad, while the procurement and dispatch of the contraband from Afghanistan had been facilitated by another co- accused. The receipt of the consignment in India had been managed by certain accused persons, and the subsequent distribution and sale of the contraband had allegedly been handled by a network of associates, including the present applicant. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that certain co-accused persons had been involved in managing and routing the proceeds of crime, including transferring funds abroad and arranging advance payments for the consignment. The recovered contraband, being of commercial quantity, had attracted the rigours of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that the present applicant, who has been arrayed as an accused in the chargesheet, had been actively involved in the distribution network and is stated to be a close associate of one of the key conspirators operating from abroad.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no cogent or admissible evidence on record to connect him with the alleged offence. It is contended that the role attributed to the applicant is limited to an alleged conspiracy, without any recovery of contraband, money, or any incriminating material from him. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been arrested solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons, which are inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the basis for continued incarceration. It is further argued that even the prosecution’s reliance on call detail records is misconceived, as the same are merely circumstantial in nature and are matters to be tested during trial. Learned counsel submits that there is no direct or independent evidence to establish any meeting of minds or agreement so as to constitute a criminal conspiracy. It is also contended that the statements of certain witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are hearsay in nature and do not implicate the applicant directly. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2024, i.e., for a substantial period, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, especially as a large number of witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. It is argued that charges have already been framed and the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence, yet