J U D G M E N T

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 49/2025 of Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur for offence under Section 20/25 of the NDPS Act.

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. On 17.01.2025, on the basis of specific named secret information, the present accused/applicant was apprehended from second floor flat of a premises in Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. In the course of search of the said premises, two packets were recovered and the same were later found on being tested with the Field Testing Kit as 1.516 kg charas. The allegedly recovered contraband and other article were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of NG, name of the IO being Naveen Gurjar. After registration of FIR, the accused/applicant was interrogated and arrested on 17.01.2025.

3. I heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by the Investigating Officer (IO).

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant raised two grounds in support of the bail application.

4.1 Firstly, it was argued that the material deposited with the malkhana is not the material allegedly recovered from the accused/applicant, and the recovery proceedings stand vitiated. It was argued that column 3 of Register No. 19 names the IO as the person who deposited the sealed parcel in malkhana, whereas the SHO in his statement under Section 161 CrPC stated that it is he who deposited the said parcels in malkhana. It was also submitted that the seal on the deposited parcels is of NG (Naveen Gurjar) while seal of the SHO Inspector Prahlad Matsaya is PSM according to statement of the SHO.

4.2 Secondly, it was contended that since grounds of arrest were not furnished to the accused/applicant, he is entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, learned counsel for accused/applicant referred to certain judicial precedents, which are discussed hereafter.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for State contended that the quantity of charas recovered from the accused/applicant was commercial quantity, so twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play. It was also argued that even as per FIR, the sealed parcels were sent by the IO from the spot of recovery for perusal of the SHO, the superior officer and it is thereafter that the SHO deposited the sealed parcels in the malkhana. It was pointed out by learned APP that Register No. 19, which is relied upon by the accused/applicant, itself also mentions that the seal of PSM was affixed by the SHO on the parcels as counter seal to maintain the purity of the recovered material. As regards grounds of arrest, learned APP submitted that the same are clearly defined in Serial No. 9 of the Arrest Memo. Further, it was submitted that in terms with settled legal position, the requirement of detailed grounds of arrest has to be kept in mind only in those cases where the accused is arrested after November 2025, while in the present case, the accused/applicant was arrested on 17.01.2025, so even if the grounds of arrest were not supplied, the accused/applicant cannot be granted bail on that ground, ignoring the twin conditions of Section 37 of the Act. It was further contended by learned APP that since the accused/applicant does not claim having suffered any prejudice on account of the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest, this ground does not help him.

6. Admittedly, the quantity of charas allegedly recovered from the accused/applicant was a commercial quantity. That being so, the twin condition