Trupti Rajendra Patil vs State Nct Of Delhi

$~P-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:26.05.2026
Pronounced on: 30.05.2026
Uploaded on:30.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026
TRUPTI RAJENDRA PATIL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Shivanshu
Yadav, Mr. Manninder Singh and
Mr. Ujjwal Pandey, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneett Singhal, SPP along
with Ms Yashi Pandey, Advocate.
IO/ACO Sunil.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
J U D G M E N T
1. By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the petitioner seeks regular
bail in connection with C.No. VIII(AP)10/P&I/5480-D/Arrival/2025,
registered at IGI Airport, New Delhi, under Sections 8, 20(b), 23 and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS
Act”].
2. I have heard Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Puneett Singhal, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
ROSECUTION CASE
A. P
3. The case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the material on
record, is as follows;
a. On 08.11.2025, the petitioner, who was travelling from Bangkok to
Delhi [Flight No. AI 2335], was intercepted at Terminal 3, IGI
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 1 of 11

Airport, Delhi, while she was approaching the exit, on the basis of
spot profiling.
b. She was thereafter taken for scanning of her baggage through an X-
Ray machine in the presence of Custom Officers. Upon scanning,
suspicious images were seen, and the petitioner was asked to pass
through a Door Frame Metal Detector. Although nothing was
revealed, due to the unusual behavior of the petitioner, she was
taken for a personal search.
c. The petitioner was served notices dated 09.11.2025 under Section
102 of the Customs Act, 1962 [“the Customs Act”], and Section 50
of the NDPS Act. Pursuant to her giving consent for search in the
presence of a Gazetted Officer of Customs, the petitioner’s
baggage and person were searched.
d. The baggage search of the petitioner led to recovery of a boarding
pass, passport, one dark grey coloured trolley bag containing 20
polythene packets containing green coloured substance, one ID
Card with National Investigating Agency [“NIA”] credentials, two
mobile phones and currency.
e. During investigation, the petitioner stated that she is a NIA Officer
working as Deputy Superintendent, International Cooperation
Division. Upon verification from the NIA Office, the petitioner’s
ID Card alongwith NIA jacket which were seized during
investigation, were found to be fake.
f. The gross weight of the total contraband recovered from the 20
polythene pouches was 10.062 kgs, excluding the weight of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 2 of 11

concealing material. The substance was seized under Section 43(a)
of the NDPS Act. Upon testing of the material, the substance was
found to be positive for Ganja/Marijuana.
g. On 09.11.2025, the petitioner provided her voluntary statement
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein she inter alia stated
that the Ganja recovered from the baggage did not belong to her,
and she was carrying the bag on the instructions of one Mr. Ali.
She stated that Mr. Ali informed her that she will be given a
government ID, and will be required to make 4-5 foreign trips, for
which she would be well compensated. Mr. Ali thereafter booked
her tickets from Bangkok to Delhi and introduced her to one Mr.
Arun, who handed over a jacket bearing the NIA logo, NIA ID
Card and the bag containing the contraband. She stated that she
had done the same exercise on three earlier occasions and was paid
Rs.50,000/- for each delivery.
h. The petitioner was arrested on 09.11.2025.
i. A second statement of the petitioner was recorded on 09.12.2025.
Upon being shown pictures of two individuals taken from her
phone, she identified them as Meenal and Mehar. She stated that
she had travelled with them thrice in the past. The first time was on
14.10.2025, when they travelled to Bangkok from Mumbai Airport
and returned to Delhi Airport on 16.10.2025 with one bag each,
and handed over the bags at the reception of Hotel Lemon Tree,
Aerocity, New Delhi, as instructed by Mr. Ali. The second time,
they travelled from New Delhi to Bangkok and returned to Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 3 of 11

on 20.10.2025 with one bag each, and repeated the same handing
over exercise. The third time, they travelled from Mumbai to
Bangkok and returned to Delhi on 27.10.2025, and went to Hotel
Pride Plaza and handed over the bags at the reception. She further
stated that she had initially met Mr. Ali six years ago at an event in
Pune, and he only contacted her recently after getting her number
from a mutual friend.

j. The General Manager, Hotel Lemon Tree, Aerocity, confirmed that
the petitioner, alongwith her associates, had stayed at the hotel
from 16.10.2025 to 17.10.2025 and 20.10.2025 to 21.10.2025,
which was further corroborated by CCTV footage. Hotel Pride
Plaza also confirmed their stay from 27.10.2025 till 28.10.2025,
which has also been corroborated by CCTV footage.
k. It is stated that Mehar and Meenal have not yet joined
investigation, and non-bailable warrants have been issued against
them.
l. Based upon the petitioner’s statement on 09.11.2025, the bank
statements of one Mayur Deepak Raut were perused, and it was
found that Rs.90,000/- was deposited in the account on 17.10.2025
in two installments allegedly by Mr. Ali at the request of the
petitioner.
m. On the basis of the above, chargesheet was filed under Sections 8,
20B, 23 and 29 of NDP Act read with Sections 204, 205, 319, 226,
337 and 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”].
n. Charges have been framed against the petitioner, vide order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 4 of 11

05.05.2026 of the Special Court, under Sections 8, 20(b) and 23 of
the NDPS Act and Sections 204, 205, 337 and 339 of BNS. A copy
of the order on charge has been handed up in Court and is taken on
record.
4. The Nominal Roll reflects that, as of 11.05.2026, the petitioner had
been in judicial custody for a period of 6 months and 6 days. She has thus
now been in custody for a period of 6 months 25 days.

5. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail application before the Special
Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2026. The Special
Court inter alia held that the manner in which the petitioner was
apprehended with contraband is grave in nature, and possibility of the
petitioner fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out.
B. S UBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
6. Mr. Sharma, in support of the application, submitted that the
allegation in the present case pertains to possession of intermediate
quantity of Ganja , and the strict rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
will not apply.
7. As far as allegations pertaining to impersonation of a public servant
is concerned, Mr. Sharma submitted that the maximum sentence under
Section 204 and 205 BNS is three years, whereas under Section 337 and
339 BNS is seven years, and the petitioner has already been in custody
for a period of over six months. The chargesheet stands filed, none of the
16 prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the trial is thus likely
to take considerable time.
8. Mr. Sharma submitted that the petitioner is HIV positive and is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 5 of 11

severely immunocompromised. She requires uninterrupted antiretroviral
therapy and constant medical supervision. To this effect, he relied upon a
medical certificate dated 13.05.2026 and other medical documents
annexed therewith.
9. Mr. Singhal, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner are serious. The petitioner was caught at the airport
attempting to import over 10 kgs of Ganja . She was also impersonating
an NIA Officer in order to evade detection. A NIA jacket, as well as NIA

ID Card was recovered from her. She has, therefore, been charged with
offences under BNS as well. He relies upon a judgment of a coordinate
1
Bench of this Court in Naresh Mahato v. State of NCT of Delhi , wherein
this Court denied bail in a case of impersonation of a Directorate of
Enforcement officer. Mr. Singhal further submitted that, although the
quantity of contraband recovered is intermediate, the petitioner is a leader
of a syndicate.
10. With regard to the medical condition of the petitioner, Mr. Singhal
submitted that adequate facilities are available through the jail authorities,
to take care of her medical requirements. He relied upon a judgment of
2
the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr. ,
wherein the Supreme Court cancelled bail granted to an HIV positive
accused, in a case under the NDPS Act. Lastly, Mr. Singhal submitted
that the investigation revealed links to two other persons and prior trips,
for which investigation is still pending, as the other two have still not
joined investigation.

1
BAIL APPLN. 3061/2023, decided on 14.2.2024 [hereinafter, “ Naresh Mahato ”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 6 of 11

C. A NALYSIS
11. It is the admitted position that the quantity of Ganja allegedly
recovered from the petitioner is 10.062 kgs, which falls in the
intermediate quantity category [2kgs to 20kgs]. The recovery in the
present case was thus far short of a commercial quantity. The stringent
conditions prescribed under Section 37 of NDPS Act, therefore, do not
apply.

12. Charges have been framed, but recording of evidence is yet to
commence. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, who is
immunocompromised, has already spent over six months in custody.
13. The contention of Mr. Singhal that the petitioner was the leader of
the alleged syndicate does not, prima facie , appear to be borne out from
the material placed on record. Even as per the prosecution case, the
petitioner was allegedly acting under the instructions of one Mr. Ali.
14. Insofar as the petitioner’s medical condition is concerned, it is not
disputed that the petitioner is HIV positive. In support thereof, the
petitioner has placed on record a medical certificate dated 13.05.2026
alongwith other supporting medical documents. Pursuant to order of the
Court, the respondent has also produced a letter dated 19.05.2026,
verifying the authenticity of the said medical records. The medical
condition of the petitioner, including the fact that she is
immunocompromised and requires uninterrupted medical care and
antiretroviral therapy, is also a relevant consideration while adjudicating
the present application for bail.

2
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16021/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 7 of 11

15. Mr. Singhal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Lalrintluanga Sailo to contend that an accused cannot be granted bail
merely on the ground of being HIV positive. However, the said judgment
is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as it pertained to recovery of a
commercial quantity of contraband. It is in that context, that the Supreme
3
Court distinguished Bhawani Singh v. State of Rajasthan , in which bail
had been granted on the ground that the applicant was suffering from HIV
and appeared to be immunocompromised. In Lalrintluanga Sailo , the
Court held that being HIV positive alone would not justify bail, without
satisfaction of the stringent conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act. In
the present case, in contrast, the allegations pertain to an intermediate
quantity, and therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not
attracted.
16. While these factors inure in the petitioner’s favour at this stage,
Mr. Singhal emphasised the allegations pertaining to impersonation of a
government officer, for which charges have been framed under Sections
204, 205, 337 and 339 of the BNS.
17. The allegation of impersonation of law enforcement officers is, in
my view, a significant factor against the petitioner in this case. However,
on balance, I am not inclined to decline bail solely on this ground. The
maximum punishment prescribed under Sections 204 and 205 is
imprisonment for three years, whereas the offences under Sections 337
and 339 are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The
allegations are yet to be tested at trial, and the petitioner has already

3
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1991.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 8 of 11

remained in custody for more than six months. As noted above, the trial is
likely to take considerable time, particularly as none of the 16 prosecution
witnesses have been examined thus far.
18. Mr. Singhal’s reliance on Naresh Mahato also does not commend
to me, as each case has to be seen in its own facts and circumstances. In
that case, the allegation was of extortion by impersonation of an ED
official, and there was no countervailing medical circumstance.

19. Taking all the relevant factors into account, particularly the
intermediate quantity of ganja involved, thus rendering Section 37 of the
NDPS Act inapplicable, the stage of proceedings, maximum sentence for
the offences charged, and the petitioner’s serious medical condition, on
balance, I am of the view that it is not appropriate to deprive her further
of her liberty pending trial.
D. C ONCLUSION
20. It is therefore directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail
in connection with C.No. VIII(AP)10/P&I/5480-D/Arrival/2025,
registered at IGI Airport, New Delhi, under Sections 8, 20(b), 23 and 29
of the NDPS Act, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
concerned Duty Magistrate/Special Court, and subject to the following
further conditions:
a. The petitioner shall appear before the Special Court on each and
every date of hearing fixed, unless specifically exempted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 9 of 11

b. The petitioner shall deposit her passport with the Special Court,
and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the
Special Court.
c. The petitioner shall ordinarily reside at the address as per prison
records, and shall not change the address without prior intimation
to the concerned Investigating Officer [“IO”]/ Station House
Officer [“SHO”].

d. 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.
e. The petitioner shall report to the jurisdictional Police Station near
her place of residence every Monday at 04:00 PM, and will be
released within two hours, after completion of formalities.
f. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case, or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any
manner whatsoever.
g. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of
the proceedings.
21. The bail application is disposed of in terms of the above.
22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of adjudication of the present bail application, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 10 of 11

they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.
23. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information and necessary compliance.


PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 26, 2026
SS/AD/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:43:47
BAIL APPLN. 1661/2026 Page 11 of 11