Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Yusuf Aajam - Petitioner
Versus
State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 4822 of 2025 & CRL.M.A. 37052 of 2025, CRL.M.A. 8797 of 2026, CRL.M.A. 8798 of 2026, CRL.M.A. 9018 of 2026, CRL.M.A. 9019 of 2026, CRL.M.A. 10837 of 2026, CRL.M.A. 10838 of 2026
Decided On : 30-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Ms. Megha Saroa, Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Janak Raj Ambavat and Mr. Anmol, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP

Prolonged pre-trial incarceration, coupled with debatable compliance with mandatory search procedures and the availability of parity with co-accused, justifies the grant of regular bail, even under stringent statutory regimes, provided the prosecution’s case against the accused is not prima-facie absolute.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 42 - Compliance of mandatory requirements regarding search and seizure - Section 37 - Rigours and satisfaction of twin conditions - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Regular bail - Where the legality of a search is contested on the basis of an arguable infraction of mandatory statutory safeguards, it forms a relevant consideration in assessing the prosecution case on the touchstone of strict statutory conditions for bail. (Paras 35, 50)

(B) Right to speedy trial and pre-trial incarceration - Where an accused has been in custody for a substantial duration without charges being framed, prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to assume a punitive character despite stringent bail provisions. (Paras 43, 45, 46)

(C) Parity - The grant of regular bail to co-accused persons who are links in the same alleged transactional chain is a significant factor in determining the proportionality and justification of continued incarceration. (Para 47)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a holder of pharmaceutical licenses, sought regular bail in connection with alleged offenses related to the possession and sale of controlled psychotropic substances. The petitioner contended that the drugs were purchased legitimately, that the search was conducted in violation of mandatory statutory procedures, that no conspiracy existed, and that his continued incarceration for over two years without the framing of charges necessitated his release on grounds of parity and prolonged detention.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the challenge regarding the mandatory procedural compliance of search and seizure raised debatable issues, and the fact that the recovered substances were ostensibly linked to licensed entities introduced a significant argument regarding whether the alleged conduct constituted a regulatory breach under pharmaceutical laws rather than substantive illicit drug trafficking. Given the substantial period of pre-trial detention and the fact that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail, the petitioner was entitled to relief.

Issues: The main issues were whether the failure to strictly adhere to mandatory search procedures justified bail, whether the possession of licensed stock stored at an unauthorized location constitutes trafficking under the governing statute, and the effect of prolonged pre-trial incarceration on the right to liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where serious doubts are cast upon the procedural integrity of a search and seizure, and the accused has endured significant pre-trial incarceration while the trial remains at a nascent stage, bail may be granted notwithstanding restrictive statutory conditions, particularly when parity is established with other accused persons already released.

Result: Bail granted.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for a bail application under the ndps act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner's challenge regarding licensing, search protocol, and delay. (Para 7)
3. state's position on organized crime and section 37 rigours. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. review of compliance with section 42 of the ndps act. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. distinction between storage irregularities and illicit possession. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. impact of prolonged incarceration and delay on bail rights. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
7. applicability of parity and precedent regarding antecedents. (Para 47 , 48 , 49)
8. final ratio for granting bail and conditions of release. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.258/2023 dated 06.10.2023 under sections 22/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) at P.S.: Special Cell, Delhi.

2. At the outset Mr. Akshay Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that his earlier regular bail petition bearing BAIL APPLN. No.1526/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn, since the petitioner wanted to file a fresh bail petition with additional grounds and documents.

3. Notice on this petition was issued on 11.12.2025.

4. Status report dated 07.01.2026 has been filed on behalf of the State.

5. Nominal roll dated 24.01.2026 has been requisitioned from the Jail Superintendent.

6. This court has heard Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner; as well as Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP for the State.

PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

7. In the context of the allegations made against him in the subject FIR, the petitioner has made the following principal submissions:

7.1. It is submitted that though the petitioner’s name has been brought into a matter that concerns several other accused persons, the petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2024 basis the disclosure statements of one Rahul Varshney and one Tushar Aggarwal, who (latter) were arrested on 04.04.2024 for allegedly supplying contraband to one Zubair. In their disclosure statements the said two persons are claimed to have said that they used to procure contraband from the present petitioner.

7.2. It is pointed-out that both Rahul Varshney and Tushar Aggarwal have already been admitted to regular bail.

7.3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that he was the owner of a firm by the name of Sunrise Pharmaceuticals (‘Sunrise Pharma’), and that three other firms, namely NA Pharma, Medisales Pharmaceuticals (‘Medisales Pharma’) (alleged to have been run by the petitioner in the name of Lavlesh Gupta), and AC Pharmaceuticals (alleged to have been run by the petitioner in the name of Anil Chaudhary), the allegations being that the said three firms were also being operated by the petitioner, though pharmaceutical drugs were purchased in the names of these firms.

7.4. Mr. Bhandari has submitted that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that he used to purchase medicines in the name of the said three firms and would sell the same to co-accused Rahul Varshney and Tushar Aggarwal; with the crux of the allegation being that Rahul Varshney and Tushar Aggarwal further sold the pharmaceutical drugs to one Zubair, who sold them onward to one Faizan Beg. It has been pointed-out, that it is the prosecution’s own case that Rahul Varshney used to run a firm called Kashish Pharma, which firm held a valid pharmaceutical license; and Tushar Aggarwal used to run a firm called Bajrang Pharma, which also held such license. It has been argued that regular monetary transactions were taking place between the petitioner and the said two persons, through their firm accounts, and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 547

Cases Referred (3)