Afsana vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Ps Bhalswa Dairy

$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: 03 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010384692026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3403/2026
AFSANA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Deepak Raj, Advocate
Mob: 9650891289
Email:
[email protected]

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH PS BHALSWA DAIRY
.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State.
(M): 9868632122
Email:
[email protected]
SI Sohan Thakur, ANS/OND
Mob: 9716702170
Email: [email protected]

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, i.e.,
Afsana W/o Abdul Majid, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking regular bail in respect of the First
th
Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 590/2025 dated 29 August, 2025,
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

registered at Police Station (“PS”) Bhalswa Dairy, Outer North District,
Delhi, under Sections 21/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).
2. The case being SC 125/2026 , in respect of the aforesaid FIR, is pending
adjudication before the Special Judge (NDPS)/Additional Sessions Judge,
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, and is currently at the stage of arguments
on charge.
3. The petitioner had previously moved two regular bail applications
th
before the Special Court, which were dismissed vide orders dated 04
th
November, 2025, and 29 April, 2026, respectively.
4. The prosecution case, as culled out from the material on record, is as
follows:
th
4.1. On 29 August, 2025, a police official at PS Bhalswa Dairy received
information from a secret informer that a woman named Afsana, i.e., the
petitioner, residing at Jahangirpuri, Delhi, was involved in the supply of
heroin in bulk. The informer further revealed that the petitioner would arrive
behind Kalander Colony, Service Road, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi , between 11:30
AM and 12:30 PM, to supply heroin from her carrying bag to one of her
customers.
4.2. After the said secret information was verified, a raiding party
comprising police officials was constituted, and a trap was laid behind
Kalander Colony, Service Road, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi .
4.3. At about 11:45 AM, a woman carrying a bag in her right hand was seen
coming from the side of Jhanda Chowk, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi . Upon seeing
the woman, the secret informer identified her as the petitioner. The petitioner
thereafter reached behind Kalander Colony, Service Road, Bhalswa Dairy,
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

Delhi , and started waiting for someone.
4.4. After some time, the petitioner started going towards Jhanda Chowk,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi , when she was overpowered by a constable on the
instruction of a sub-inspector at about 11:52 AM.
4.5. Upon checking the carrying bag of the petitioner, a heavy black
polythene packet was found, inside which was a transparent white polythene
packet containing a brown powdery substance.
4.6. The recovered substance, when tested with a Field Testing Kit, was
detected to be heroin and weighed 300 grams, along with the weight of the
transparent white polythene packet.
4.7. During interrogation, the petitioner disclosed that she used to procure
heroin from one Mansi, who was a resident of Burari, and her husband,
namely, Narender, who would come to Petrol Pump, Burari, Delhi , for the
supply of heroin on the instructions of his wife.
4.8. During the further course of investigation, Narender and his wife, i.e.,
Mansi, were arrested and 712 grams of heroin were recovered during search
of their house. On interrogation, Mansi disclosed that she used to procure
heroin from one Santosh for further supply.
4.9. Subsequently, at the instance of Mansi, a raid was conducted at the
house of Santosh, but the same was found locked.
4.10. During the further course of investigation, acting on secret information,
th
the police arrested Santosh on 05 September, 2025, and recovered 97 grams
of heroin from her house. On interrogation, Santosh disclosed that she used to
procure heroin from one Anil for further supply to Sonia and Nitin, both
residents of Andha Mughal, Delhi.
4.11. At the instance of Santosh, raids were conducted at the houses of Sonia
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

and Nitin, but their houses were found locked.
th
4.12. Thereafter, Anil was arrested on 09 September, 2025, and 1.992 grams
of heroin were recovered from his house.
4.13. During the course of investigation, Sonia and Nitin were arrested in
connection with FIR No. 45/25 , registered at PS Crime, Delhi, under Section
21 of the NDPS Act. Subsequently, permission to interrogate and formally
th
arrest Sonia was obtained, and she was formally arrested on 16 October,
nd
2025. Nitin was also formally arrested on 22 October, 2025.
th
4.14. After completion of the investigation, a Chargesheet dated 20
February, 2026, was filed by the Investigating Officer (“IO”) in respect of the
th
present FIR. A Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”) Report dated 07 April,
2026, has also been filed.
4.15. The brief details of the narcotic drugs recovered from the co-accused
persons in the present case are as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”
5. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted as follows:
5.1. The investigation in the present case is complete and the IO has filed a
Chargesheet before the Special Court.
5.2. No independent witnesses were present during the search of the
petitioner, which undermines the claim of the prosecution that the search and
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

seizure were valid.
5.3. Further, Section 105 of the BNSS makes the recording of search and
seizure through audio-video electronic means essential. However, no
videography was provided to the petitioner.
5.4. The petitioner is a woman and the mother of two minor children, aged
five years and two years, who are entirely dependent on her care and custody.
She is the sole bread earner of the family, and her husband neither resides
with her, nor provides any financial support.
5.5. The petitioner also has no criminal antecedents.
5.6. The trial is likely to take a long time, given that the examination of 23
witnesses has not yet commenced.
5.7. The FSL Report has established that the substance recovered from the
petitioner, which is marked as Exhibit ‘A1’, does not contain the requisite
chemical, namely, ‘Diacetylmorphine’, which is classified as heroin under the
NDPS Act.
6. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) appearing
for the State vehemently opposes the present application on the ground that
300 grams of heroin were recovered from the petitioner based on secret
information and that, pursuant to her disclosure statement, 712 grams of
heroin were recovered from the house of Mansi and Narender.
7. As regards the absence of videography, he submits that the requirement
of video recording of the search and seizure operation is directory and not
mandatory.
8. He further submits that the quality of heroin recovered from the
petitioner may have degraded on account of environmental conditions, and
that there is a strong apprehension that the entire contraband is
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

‘Diacetylmorphine’.
9. He also draws attention to the fact that the petitioner has been in
custody for only approximately one year and that charges are yet to be framed
by the Special Court.
10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, at the outset,
this Court notes that the recovery involved in the present case was allegedly
of 300 grams of heroin. However, as per the FSL Report, the substance
recovered from the petitioner has been identified as containing ‘6-
Monoacetylmorphine’, ‘Acetylcodeine’, ‘Morphine’, ‘Codeine’,
‘Noscapine’, ‘Clozapine’, ‘Trimethoprim’, ‘Caffeine’ and ‘Acetaminophen’,
which do not fall within the classification of heroin under the NDPS Act.
11. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment in the case of
Aditya Kumar Versus Union of India Through Narcotic Control Bureau,
Lucknow, 2022 SCC OnLine All 625 , wherein it was held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

21. Analyzing the facts of the present case for the purpose of
deciding the applicants claim for bail in light of the aforesaid
law, I find the following facts to be relevant at this stage:—
(i) Although the search and seizure was conducted at Bareilly
Railway Station there is no independent witness of the alleged
recovery.
(ii) The constables of Railway Police Force cannot be said to
be independent witnesses.
(iii) Although it is mentioned in the recovery memo that search
was conducted in presence of a Gazzetted Officer Sri. Harjeet
Singh “ADEN/BE’, but the recovery memo does not bear
signatures of the Gazetted Officer.
(iv) The recovery memo claims that in test and re-test of the
substances conducted by the DD kit, both times it was found to
be Heroin.
(v) The Intelligence Officer, N.C.B. Zonal Unit Lucknow, has
stated on oath that the sample was tested by the Government
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

Laboratory and the report states that the samples under
reference answered positive test for Heroin. However, a copy
of the said test report has not been filed by the NCB.
(vi) The test report filed by the applicant categorically states
that the substance was not found to be Heroin but it was
Morphine.
(vii) Heroin and Morphine are different and distinct
substances. Heroine ((Diacetylmorphine)) is mentioned at
Serial No. 56 of the Notification dated 16-07-1996 specifying
small quantity and commercial quantity issued under Section
2 (vii) (a) and 2 (xxiii) (a) of the Act and Morphine is
mentioned at Serial No. 77 thereof.
22. The aforesaid facts raise doubts against the prosecution
case and it gives rise to a reasonable ground for prima facie
believing at this stage that the applicant may not be held guilty
of the alleged offences .

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
rd
12. Similarly, in the order dated 23 December, 2020, passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in BAIL APPLN. 3576/2020 , titled as
Dharmender Versus The State , it was held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

4. The FSL report has been furnished and the conclusion of the
said report is set out below:-

“RERSULTS OF EXAMINATION REPORT

On Chemical, TLC & & GC-MS examination (1)
Exhibit ‘A-1’ was found to contain
‘Acetaminophen’, ‘Dextromethorphan’, ‘Codeine’,
‘Vcetylcodeine’ & ‘6- monoacetylmorphine’ &
‘Trimethoprim’.
(ii) Exhibit ‘B-1’ was found to contain
‘Acetaminophen.’”
5. It is apparent from the above that the sample Marked as B-
1 (which was allegedly drawn from the pouch marked as ‘B’
did not contain any Heroin. Insofar as sample A-1 is
concerned, it is contended on behalf of the prosecution that
the same contained a degraded form of Heroin.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that
Signature Not Verified
Page 7 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

even if it is assumed that the samples were correctly drawn, the
analysis of sample B1 indicates that pouch Marked-B did not
contain Heroin, but acetaminophen. He submits that none of
the substances allegedly found in sample A-1 is
diacetylmorphine which is the chemical compound commonly
known as Heroin
7. Undisputedly, the FSL’s report raises a serious question to
the case of the prosecution regarding both pouches Marked
as ‘A’ and ‘B’. The result of the Field Testing Kit is also not
confirmed by the FSL report. The allegation of the
prosecution that both pouches contain identical substances is
not supported by the FSL report

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. Furthermore, in the recent case of Taslima Alias Putti Versus State
NCT of Delhi, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 605 , a Coordinate Bench of this Court
held as under:
“xxx xxx xxx

12. The FSL report dated 19.09.2025 of the recovered
contraband, which was conducted after the results of the field-
testing report, states as under:—
“… …Kindly refer to letter 379 and
380/Inspector/Narcotics Cell/OND dated
21/08/2025, on the subject cited above. The
following clarification is enclosed:
1. The exhibits did not contain Diacetylmorphine,
commonly known as Heroin.
2. The presence of Monoacetylmorphine (ester of
Morphine), Acetylcodeine (ester of Codeine) is
generally attributable to hydrolysis of crude Heroin.
3. As per NDPS Act, ‘esters’ of the drugs listed in
the Act (Morphine and Codeine) also are
punishable. …”
13. As per above, though the preliminary field testing of the
alleged contraband said the recovered substance was
‘Heroin’, however, the latter FSL report conclusively
indicated absence of ‘Diacetylmorphine’, which is a requisite
for the substance to be classified as ‘Heroin’ under the NDPS
Signature Not Verified
Page 8 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

Act. Moreover, even the FIR states “…When the SI checked
the powder like substance found in the waxy bag with the field
testing kit, it was found to be Heroin. …”. The said position
is not disputed by the prosecution. Based thereon, there is a
more than prima facie doubt raised, more so, since it goes into
the root of the matter and is regarding the very foundation of
the prosecution’s case. That, involving the period of
incarceration, the investigation being already over and
chargesheet having been filed almost fifteen months prior,
and the evidence yet having not commenced coupled with the
fact that the trial is likely to take time, and the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act also hanging in doubt, are
grounds for furnishing bail to the applicant at this stage .

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the substance recovered from the petitioner is not contraband as it does not
contain ‘Diacetylmorphine’, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are not applicable.
15. Pertinently, the co-accused person, namely, Santosh, from whom 97
grams of heroin was recovered has also been released on bail.
16. Further, it is noted that the investigation in the present case is complete
and the Chargesheet has already been filed. The trial has not yet commenced,
and none of the 23 witnesses, as cited by the prosecution, have been examined
till date. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable
time.
th
17. Additionally, as per the Nominal Roll dated 29 September, 2026, the
petitioner has already undergone one year and one month of custody, as on
th
28 September, 2026, and the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory.
18. The apprehension of the State that the petitioner may influence
witnesses or indulge in any similar kind of offence can be addressed by
Signature Not Verified
Page 9 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

imposing appropriate conditions.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, the present application is allowed and the
petitioner is released on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 590/2025
th
dated 29 August, 2025, registered at PS Bhalswa Dairy, Outer North District,
Delhi, under Sections 21/25/29 of the NDPS Act, subject to furnishing a bail
bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety of like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Special Court/Duty Magistrate, and further subject to the
following conditions:
a. The petitioner shall appear before the Special Court on each and every
date of hearing.
b. The petitioner shall ordinarily reside at the address as per prison
records, and shall not change the address without informing the concerned
IO/Station House Officer.
c. The petitioner shall furnish her mobile number to the concerned
IO/SHO, and shall ensure that the said mobile number remains operational
and switched on at all times. The mobile number shall not be changed, nor
shall the phone be switched off, without prior intimation to the IO/SHO.
d. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, nor visit, nor
offer any inducement, threat, or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses
or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
e. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence nor
otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would
prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.
f. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the
proceedings.
20. The present application is allowed and accordingly, disposed of, in the
Signature Not Verified
Page 10 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59

aforementioned terms.
21. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are solely
for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall neither
influence the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
22. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
information and necessary compliance.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/SK/KR




Signature Not Verified
Page 11 of 11

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59