Sagar Sejwal vs State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi)

Court
Delhi High Court

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010343962026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3024/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1433/2026
SAGAR SEJWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Simaran Chawdhary, Ms.
Shambhavi Singh, Mr. Dushyant and
Mr. Ayush Mishra, Advocates.

versus

STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with IO/ASI Sachin.







CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 298/2025 of
Police Station Crime Branch for offence under Section 20/29 of NDPS Act.

2. Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that on
the basis of secret information, his car was intercepted, from which 2.070 kg
charas was recovered. The threshold commercial quantity of charas being 1
kg, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act would operate in this case.

Bail Application 3024/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:25:08 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50

3. I have heard learned senior counsel for accused/applicant and learned
APP for State assisted by IO/ASI Sachin.

4. Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant submits that
accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail because the contraband
allegedly recovered from his car had been planted. It is elaborated by
learned senior counsel that according to the FIR, the car of the
accused/applicant was intercepted at 11:30am and thereafter, at about
12:30pm, the IO made a telephone call to FSL, after which at about
04:00pm, the FSL team reached the spot and it is only thereafter that the
contraband was allegedly recovered from car. It is submitted by learned
senior counsel that all this while from 11:30am till 04:00pm, the
accused/applicant was kept in a police vehicle and during this period, the
contraband was planted in his car. In response to a specific query during
arguments, learned senior counsel reaffirms that it is mentioned in the FIR
itself that the accused/applicant was detained in a police vehicle from
11:30am to 04:00pm. It is also contended by learned senior counsel that
since the provision under Section 52A(2) NDPS Act was violated by not
preparing inventory of the allegedly recovered material, the
accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail. In this regard, learned
senior counsel places reliance on the judgment of a coordinate bench in
Yashmin vs State (NCT of Delhi) , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9572. It is also
contended by learned senior counsel that the Supreme Court held in the case

Bail Application 3024/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af
3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:24:59 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50

of Abdul Rajik vs State of M.P., 2026 INSC 1001 that non-compliance with
Section 52A NDPS Act is fatal to prosecution case.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for State strongly opposes the bail
application mainly on the ground of twin test laid down under Section 37
NDPS Act. Learned APP challenges the submissions advanced by learned
senior counsel for accused/applicant and contends that there is no material to
show that the accused/applicant was detained in a police vehicle, leaving
opportunity for the police officials to plant the contraband in car of the
accused/applicant. It is also submitted by learned APP that the inventory
was duly prepared and even examined by the learned concerned magistrate
at the stage of drawing of samples.

6. As mentioned above, the threshold commercial quantity qua charas is
1 kg and the quantity allegedly recovered from the accused/applicant was
more than double the same. That being so, rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act
cannot be ignored.

7. As regards the contention advanced by learned senior counsel for
accused/applicant that from 11:30am to 04:00pm, the accused/applicant was
detained in a police vehicle, granting opportunity to the police officials to
plant the contraband in car of the accused/applicant, the learned senior
counsel categorically reaffirmed that these circumstances have been narrated
in the FIR itself. But on going through the entire FIR, this submission is

Bail Application 3024/2026 Page 3 of 5 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:24:49 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50

found to be completely incorrect. There is not even a whisper in the FIR that
the accused/applicant was in any manner kept away from his car, leaving an
opportunity for the police officials to plant contraband therein.

8. Then comes the alleged non-compliance with Section 52A(2) NDPS
Act. As mentioned above, according to prosecution side, an inventory was
duly prepared and the learned concerned magistrate, by way of order dated
03.11.2025 (A nnexure J to the bail application ) after examining the entire
record, carried out the exercise of drawing samples from the allegedly
recovered contraband.

9. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel as
regards non-compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act, the same are of no help.
The case of Yashmin (supra) did not pertain to bail in case of recovery of
commercial quantity and the consequent rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act.
So far as Abdul Rajik (supra) is concerned, the same was an appeal arising
out of conviction and sentence of the appellant after full dress trial. Even as
regards final stage of conviction or acquittal, the Supreme Court in
paragraph 32 of Abdul Rajik (supra) observed that minor lapses or
procedural delays may not automatically lead to acquittal, but total non-
compliance with Section 52A would be a relevant factor. The present is not
a case of total non-compliance in view of the detailed order dated
03.11.2025 of the learned concerned magistrate.


Bail Application 3024/2026 Page 4 of 5 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a
fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879
65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:24:39 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50

10. The rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act were brought on the statute book
keeping in mind the serious implications of money generated from drug
dealings. Such tainted money is used in global crimes, including
international terrorism. Therefore, any loose interpretation of such stringent
provisions would have serious ramifications on not just economy but even
security of the country. The only way inroads can be judicially carved out
while dealing with Section 37 NDPS Act is through non-compliance with
constitutional tenets. The aberrations or even complete non-compliance of
procedural tenets cannot be a ground to ignore the twin conditions of
Section 37 of NDPS Act.

11. In view of above discussion, I am unable to find it a fit case to grant
bail to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the regular bail application and
accompanying application are dismissed.

12. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.



Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:24:27 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
ry
OCTOBER 29, 2026/


Bail Application 3024/2026 Page 5 of 5 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50