Babula Khara vs State Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: February 18, 2026
% Pronounced on: February 24, 2026
+ BAIL APPLN.4797/2025

BABULA KHARA …Applicant
Through: Ms. Hasin Alam, Mr. Faiz Alam, Mr. Vikrant
Pandey and Ms. Khushi Ayubi, Advs.

Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP, Ms. Upasna Bakshi,
Adv., SI Deep Sharma, PS: NDRS
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T
1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 read with
1
Section 439 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the applicant
seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.145/2023
2
dated 11.10.2023 registered at PS: New Delhi Railway Station under
Sections 20/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
3 4
1985 as well as Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
2. As per FIR, complainant found an unclaimed bag in lieu of his own
luggage aboard Train No.22823 Rajdhani Express when it reached NDRS,

1
Hereinafter ‘ BNSS ’
2
Hereinafter ‘ NDRS ’
3
Hereinafter ‘ NDPS Act ’
4
Hereinafter ‘ IPC ’
BAIL APPLN. 4797/2025 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:30:05

whereupon he informed the authorities and subsequently, at PS: NDRS,
16.452 kg of ganja was seized therefrom, and the present FIR was registered.
3. During investigation, co-accused Subhash Kumar Yadav, arrested on
16.10.2023, disclosed having purchased ganja from the applicant herein. As
the applicant was already arrested in another FIR No.182/2023 dated
27.12.2023 registered at PS: NDRS under Sections 20/61/85 NDPS Act, he
was arrested in the present FIR subsequently on 12.01.2024.

4. Though learned counsel for applicant has urged the issues qua the
applicant not named in the present FIR, that the applicant has nothing to do
with the alleged offences as no subsequent recovery or new discovery has
been made from him, that he has been falsely implicated and statements
made under Section 67 NDPS Act by the co-accused cannot incriminate him,
however, his main thrust has been on the applicant not being informed the
grounds of his arrest. The learned counsel drawn attention of this Court to the
Arrest Memo dated 12.01.2024 which is silent of any such grounds of arrest.
He submitted that since the fundamental right of the applicant under Article
22 of the Constitution of India has been violated, his arrest was illegal, and,
5
in terms of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors. as well as the
6
subsequent Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , Vihaan Kumar
7
vs. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra &
8
Anr. , the applicant is liable to be granted bail. He also relied upon the

5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244
6
(2024) 8 SCC 254
7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 269
8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356
BAIL APPLN. 4797/2025 Page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:30:05

decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gagan vs. State (NCT of
9
Delhi) , and, as recorded in order dated 05.02.2026 passed by this Court,
upon the recent decisions of this Court in Pahalman Budha Magar vs. State
10 11
of NCT of Delhi and Lokesh Alias Manish vs. State in support of his
arguments.
5. Learned APP, on the other hand, though opposed grant of bail to the
applicant on various grounds but had no answer to the non-supply of grounds
of arrest to the applicant.
6. In such a scenario, after hearing learned counsel as also the learned
APP and perusing the documents on record, this Court, at the very threshold,
is to consider the established legal position in case of admitted non-supply of
grounds of arrest to the applicant.
7. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) on
03.10.2023, meaningful furnishing of grounds of arrest to an arrestee in
writing in a language/s s/he understands is a mandatory requirement under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The same has been reinforced by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in [i] Prabir Purkayastha (supra) wherein arrests
under any Statute(s) were held to be subject to the same mandate qua the
fundamental right of an arrestee to be informed of the grounds of his arrest so
as to afford him a real opportunity of defending himself, especially against
custodial remand and to seek bail, as also in [ii] Vihaan Kumar (supra)
wherein it has been highlighted that violation of the same would also

9
2025:DHC:1402
10
2026:DHC:507
11
2026:DHC:509
BAIL APPLN. 4797/2025 Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:30:05

tantamount to violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee under Article
21 of the Constitution, and lastly in [iii] Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) where
further safeguards have been laid down, such as production before a
Magistrate within two hours in case of non-communication of grounds of
arrest in writing.
8. In terms of the aforesaid, this Court has also consistently taken the
same view in Gagan (supra) , Pahalman Budha Magar (supra) and Lokesh
(supra) .
9. In the present case, a perusal of the Arrest Memo dated 12.01.2024
makes it clear that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the applicant in
writing at the time of his arrest. In fact, there is no dispute qua it by the
learned APP as well. Even otherwise, the applicant was not even named in
the present FIR and thereafter also no recovery of contraband of any kind has
been made from him.
10. As such, without going into the merits involved, the same is sufficient
for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
11. Accordingly, the applicant is granted regular bail in proceedings
arising out of FIR No.145/2023 dated 11.10.2023 registered at PS: NDRS
under Sections 20/29/61/85 NDPS Act and Section 380 IPC, subject to him
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only ) along with one surety of the like amount by a family member/ friend
having no criminal case pending against him and further subject to
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to following conditions:-
BAIL APPLN. 4797/2025 Page 4 of 5
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:30:05

a. Applicant shall ordinarily reside at the address as per TCR. If he
so wishes to change his residential address, he shall immediately
intimate about the same to the I.O. by way of an affidavit.
b. Applicant shall surrender his Passport, if any, to the IO within
three days of his release. If he does not possess the same, he shall file
an affidavit before the I.O. to that effect.
c. Applicant shall join and participate in the investigation, as and
when called by the IO.
d. Applicant shall provide all his mobile numbers to the IO
concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times.
e. Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not
contact any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence
of the case.
12. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
information and compliance thereof.
14. Needless to say, observations made herein, if any, on the merits of the
matter are purely for the purposes of adjudicating the present application and
shall not be construed as expressions on the merits of the matter.


SAURABH BANERJEE, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
Ab/RS
BAIL APPLN. 4797/2025 Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:30:05