Pushkar Pandey vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi

$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 05 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010481862026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4249/2026, CRL.M.A. 31359/2026, CRL.M.A.
31360/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1912/2026

PUSHKAR PANDEY .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Akansha Vidhyarthi, Mr. Keshav
Dwivedi and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava,
Advs.
Mob: 8887657989
Email:
[email protected]

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
the State
Mob: 9871349009
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, SI, PS Anti
Narcotics Squad/Outer District

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), on behalf of the
petitioner, i.e., Pushkar Pandey, S/o Premnarayan Pandey, seeking grant of
anticipatory bail in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”)
rd
being FIR No. 160/2026 dated 23 March, 2026, under Section 21 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:45:25
Page 1 of 8

Police Station (“PS”) Sultanpuri, Outer District, Delhi.
2. The case being SC 397/2026 , arising out of FIR No. 160/2026 , is
pending adjudication before the Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”) (Special
Judge-NDPS), North West, Rohini Court, and is presently at the stage of
prosecution evidence.
3. This Court is informed that the petitioner had earlier filed an
application before the Special Court seeking anticipating bail, however, the
th
same was dismissed vide order dated 07 April, 2026, passed in Bail
Matters 707/2026 .
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State has
th
handed over to this Court a Status Report dated 28 October, 2026, which is
taken on record.
5. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from Status Report and the
other material on record, is as follows:
rd
5.1. On 23 March, 2026, at about 04:20 PM, secret information was
received at the office of the Anti-Narcotics Squad, Outer District,
Delhi, to the effect that one Omprakash, who was allegedly involved
in supplying cocaine and smack in Delhi NCR would arrive on a
motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 32 QV 5979 in the area of
Sultanpuri, Delhi, between 11:00 PM and 12:00 AM, and could be
apprehended if a raid was conducted. Acting on the said information,
a raiding team was constituted.
5.2. At about 12:00 AM, a person wearing a blue jacket was spotted
arriving on the said motorcycle. Upon being pointed out by the secret
informer, he was apprehended by the raiding team and was identified
as Omprakash Maurya.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:45:25
Page 2 of 8

5.3. During the personal search of Omprakash Maurya, two transparent
polythene packets were recovered from him, one containing a white-
coloured substance and the other a pink-coloured substance.
5.4. Upon examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”), the
white-coloured substance was found to weigh 04 grams and was
identified as cocaine, while the pink-coloured substance was found to
weigh 20 grams and was identified as smack.
5.5. Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered at PS Sultanpuri,
Outer District, Delhi, and further investigation was carried out,
pursuant to which Omprakash Maurya was arrested.
5.6. During interrogation, Omprakash Maurya disclosed that he has been
working with two persons, namely Vivek and Jay, for approximately
three months, and that, on the instructions of one Dharmender, he
transferred the money collected from the sale of smack and cocaine
into the bank account of the petitioner herein.
5.7. As per further investigation, it emerged that Dharmender allegedly
procured cocaine and smack and supplied the same to Omprakash
Maurya and Vivek, who in turn, delivered the narcotic substances in
Delhi NCR, at the behest of Dharmender.
th th
5.8. Thereafter, on 25 March, 2026, and 27 May, 2026, notices under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act were served upon the petitioner.
6. In support of the present application, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has made the following submissions:
6.1. The petitioner is 24-year-old resident of Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh,
preparing for competitive examinations and having no criminal
antecedents.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:45:25
Page 3 of 8

6.2. The entire case of the prosecution against the petitioner rests solely
on the recovery made from one accused.
6.3. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR and no contraband,
narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or other incriminating material
has been recovered from his possession.
6.4. The petitioner does not have any connection with the alleged
recovery of the contraband made from the accused, Omprakash
Maurya.
6.5. The petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of certain
monetary transactions with the co-accused, Dharmender, who has
been known to the petitioner since childhood and resides in a village
near that of the petitioner. The said transactions were undertaken at
the request of Dharmender, on the representation that the amounts
would be returned with interest.
6.6. There is no material to show that any amount was paid as
consideration for, or advanced to finance any narcotic substance.
6.7. The alleged recovery from the co-accused, Omprakash Maurya, is of
an intermediate quantity, and thus the rigours of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act do not apply. Further, he has been granted regular bail by
rd
the Special Court vide order dated 23 July, 2026, passed in SC
397/2026 .
7. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the
State opposes the present application on the following grounds:
7.1. The investigation has revealed multiple financial transactions in the
bank accounts of the petitioner with the other co-accused persons,
indicating his alleged involvement in the drug-supply network.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:45:25
Page 4 of 8

7.2. It has further been revealed that the proceeds allegedly generated
from the sale of narcotic substances were transferred to the bank
account of the petitioner herein.
7.3. The Call Detail Records (“CDRs”) show that 585 calls were
exchanged between the co-accused, Dharmender, and the petitioner
herein.
7.4. Subsequently, Non-Bailable Warrants (“NBWs”) were issued against
th
the petitioner by the Special Judge on 18 September, 2026.
However, the petitioner remains absconding and has not been
apprehended despite the steps taken by the investigating agency.
8. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the inability of the petitioner to join the investigation pursuant to the notice
issued under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was not occasioned by any
intention to evade the investigation, but was due to certain family
exigencies. She, however, submits that the petitioner is ready to join the
investigation and cooperate with the same.
9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
APP for the State.
10. Before adverting to the facts of the case at hand, it is imperative to
allude to the judgment of this Court in Deepak Nagiya Versus State (NCT
of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5641 , wherein, relying on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in State (by NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallubid Ahmad
Armutta, (2022) 12 SCC 633 , and a judgment of this Court in
Phundreimayum Yas Khan Versus State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 135 , it was held that insofar, as the CDRs are concerned, the
evidentiary value of the same can be seen at the stage of trial and cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:45:25
Page 5 of 8

a ground to deny anticipatory bail.
th
11. This Court further affords attention to the order dated 11 May, 2026,
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Salman Khan Versus
State of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 1427/2026 , whereby, the following
was held:
“xxx xxx xxx

13. In fact, the Hon’ble, Supreme Court in Balwinder Singh
(Binda) vs. Narcotic Control Bureau; (2024) 13 SCC 734 has
held that whence there has to be a recovery/ possession from the
accused who has been implicated based upon the disclosure
statement of a co-accused person then there can be a sufficient
reason to establish a link thereof. In essence, there has to be
something substantive/ more than concrete in addition to mere
disclosure statement of a co-accused person showing nexus of
the said accused with the activates of illicit trafficking of
psychotropic substances .

xxx xxx xxx

15. Though the investigation herein also reveals that there
were/ are monetary transaction between the co-accused person
and the applicant as also there are CDRs showing his
telephonic connectivity with the co-accused persons, however,
neither of them, per se, indicate anything concrete enough for
this Court to come to a conclusion that the applicant was
having any (direct) link in the activates of illicit trafficking of
psychotropic substances and/ or with the other co-accused
persons as mere contact with them is not sufficient to conclude
his involvement. Mere having some monetary transaction and/
or having CDR connectivity with the co-accused persons with
no (substantive) corroboration in the present case, thus, pale
into insignificance. At the end of the day, there is no direct
nexus established as yet. They gain much significance as there
is no recovery of any psychotropic substances from his end,
and that too despite the disclosure statement made by a co-
accused person.

16. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to conclude that the
applicant is directly involved with the total quantity seized and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:45:25
Page 6 of 8

put him to the rigours/ bar as contemplated under of Section 37
of the NDPS Act.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. In the present case, indisputably, there is no recovery of any narcotic
substance, at this stage, from the petitioner. The petitioner has been made an
accused based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, Omprakash
Maurya, who has since been enlarged on regular bail. Further, the evaluation
of the financial records and the CDRs is a matter of trial and cannot be a
ground to deny anticipatory bail.
13. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to conclude that the petitioner is
directly involved with the recovery made from the co-accused, Omprakash
Maurya, and put him to the rigours as contemplated under of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
14. The apprehension of the State that the petitioner may influence
witnesses or indulge in any similar kind of offence can be addressed by
imposing appropriate conditions.
15. As such, in the case of arrest of the petitioner, in connection with FIR
rd
No. 160/2026 dated 23 March, 2026, registered at PS Sultanpuri, Outer
District, Delhi, he shall be released on bail subject to him furnishing a bond
in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, along with one surety of the like amount, subject to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court and further subject to the following
conditions:
i. The petitioner shall ordinarily reside at the address as mentioned in
the Memo of Parties of the present application and shall not leave the
same without prior permission of the concerned Court.
ii. The petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if any, to the IO.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:45:25
Page 7 of 8

iii. The petitioner shall join and participate in the investigation as and
when called by the IO.
iv. The petitioner shall provide to the concerned IO all his mobile
numbers, which shall be kept in working condition at all times.
v. The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not
contact any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence
of the case.
16. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
17. The pending application also stands disposed of.
18. Needless to state, the observations made hereinabove are only
tentative in nature and will not come in the way of any subsequent
proceedings, which shall be dealt on their own merits.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/ SK




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:45:25
Page 8 of 8