1. By way of the present applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicants seek grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 670/2024 dated 09.12.2024, registered at Police Station Kalkaji, District South-East, New Delhi, under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“the Act”].

2. I have heard Mr. Mohd Yasin and Mr. Shan Ul Islam, learned counsel for the applicants in BAIL APPLN. 140/2026 and BAIL APPLN. 384/2026, respectively, and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The State has also placed on record status reports.

4. The case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the status reports, is that, on 09.12.2024, the applicants were apprehended while carrying a black bag. Upon search, it was found that they were carrying 21.95 kilograms of “ganja” in the said bag. They were arrested on the same day. Upon examination of their mobile phones, it was found that Shahid @ Aabu [applicant in BAIL APPLN. 384/2026] had received photographs of the narcotic substance from one Yunus @ Mukhiya. The mobile phones also show Call Detail Record connectivity between the applicants herein and co-accused Yunus @ Mukhiya. Yunus @ Mukhiya is yet to be arrested.

5. In support of the present applications, Mr. Yasin and Mr. Islam submit that the alleged recovery of the contraband substance in the present case is of 21.95 kgs, which, even according to the Seizure Memo, included ‘dried leaves and small branches’. They submit that the seized substance in the present case does not answer to the statutory definition of “ganja” and that, in any event, the quantity of contraband cannot be determined, as the substance was admittedly weighed inclusive of leaves and stalk, which do not constitute “ganja” as per the Act. In this connection, they draw my attention to the definition of “ganja” in Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act, and the judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in Ravina Kumari v. the State (NCT of Delhi), (BAIL APPLN. 1256/2024, decided on 20.09.2024 [hereinafter, “Ravina Kumari”].), and Ashok Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (BAIL APPLN. 2962/2025 and connected matter, decided on 21.11.2025 [hereinafter, “Ashok Kumar”].), as well as a judgment of this Court in Manjay Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, (BAIL APPLN. 4206/2025 and connected matter, decided on 19.03.2026 [hereinafter, “Manjay Kumar”].). Mr. Yasin has handed over a copy of the said judgments, as well as the chargesheet and accompanying documents, which are taken on record.

6. Mr. Chauhan, on the other hand, submits that the Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”] report has already been received, which confirms that the sampled goods are “ganja” within the meaning of the Act. The quantity of ganja seized being over 20 kg, Mr. Chauhan further submits that the rigours of Section 37 of the Act would apply.

7. The definition of “ganja” as provided in Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act, reads as follows:

“(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated;”

8. The Seizure Report dated 09.12.2024, which forms part of the chargesheet, records that the bag was full of dried leaves and small branches, which appeared to be ganja by smell and sight, (The Seizure Memo was recorded in Hindi, and has been translated in English by me.). The chargesheet also includes an order of the learned Magistrate’s Court dated 21.12.2024 at the time of sampling under Section 52A of the Act. In the aforesaid order, it is recorded that a “muddy brown substance” was produced before the Court, from which the samples were extracted. The FSL report dated 21.02.2025 has not been referred to in the status reports

filed by the State. However, a copy thereof also forms part of the chargesheet. In the said report, the exhibit is described as “Dried greenish brown coloured flower