Deepak @ Kaja vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No.DLHC010445342026
Date of Decision : 29.10.2026
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026
+
DEEPAK @ KAJA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma, Mr.
Pranav Prakash Sharma, Mr. Ankit
Sharma, Mr. Tarun Goel, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal (APP)
SI Sohan (ANS/ONT)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

ORAL
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( )

(Exemption from filing certified copies of annx.)
CRL.M.A. 29048/2026

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026
3. The applicant/petitioner, via the present application filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973),
seeks regular bail in FIR No. 473/2023, dated 29.04.2023, registered at P.S.
Shahbad Dairy, Outer-North (Delhi), under Sections 21/25/29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter “ NDPS
Act ”).

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 1 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

4. The applicant’s/petitioner’s first bail application in this Court (Bail
Appln. 1717/2026) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
10.08.2026, in the following terms:
“ 1. The affidavit, which the applicant has filed in compliance of the
directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zeba Khan Vs.
State of U.P. & Others: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3127, is completely
cryptic and unspecific.
2. In relation to the criminal antecedents, the applicant has, merely,
claimed as under:-
“it is submitted that there are several criminal antecedents of
applicant.”
3. Sh. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant acknowledges the
fact that the affidavit is not in the prescribed and desired manner.
4. He therefore, does not press the present application and seeks
liberty to file bail application afresh by giving affidavit in a proper
manner, while specifying the previous antecedents and details of
the pending cases.
5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of, as not pressed.
6. Liberty, as prayed, is granted.
7. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. ”
5. By way of the said order, liberty was granted to the
applicant/petitioner to file afresh. Subsequent thereto, the
applicant/petitioner filed a regular bail application before the Ld. trial Court.
The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2026 with the
following observations:
“ 5. In the present case, the allegations against the applicant are
that he along with co-accused Beena was apprehended and
commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 260 Grams of heroin were
recovered from their house.
6. The quantity recovered from the applicant falls under
commercial nature and therefore, bar of section 37 NDPS Act is
applicable with full force. The twin conditions do not seem to be
satisfied
in the present case as there is no reasonable ground to
believe that the applicant has not committed the alleged crime.
case of applicant is also not in parity with the co-accused
persons Kamla, Beena, Usha Devi and Danish who have been
7. The

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 2 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Every case has to
be dealt with according to its own facts & circumstances which
includes the nature and role played by the accused persons,
previous antecedents and other factors.
8. The applicant is found involved in 14 previous criminal cases
which involves 4 cases of NDPS Act and he is also reported to be
a BC of P.S. Sultan Puri
, which reflects the propensity for
commission of crime again by the applicant.
9. Accordingly, considering the facts & circumstances of the case,
this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
The application is hereby dismissed. ”
(emphasis supplied)
6. Vide the present application, the applicant/petitioner assails the
aforesaid order, dated 01.09.2026 and seeks regular bail.
7. The prosecution’s case is that, following the recovery of heroin from
co-accused Kamla, Shakti, and Naresh, a raiding team on 18.09.2024 arrived
at the residence of the petitioner, i.e. , Deepak @ Kaja and his wife Bina, i.e. ,
House No. D-2/70, Sultanpuri, Delhi, and recovered 260 grams of heroin
(along with the transparent wax bag) from a polythene bag hidden within a
pair of shoes. Both were consequently arrested. Subsequently, a
Supplementary Chargesheet dated 07.03.2025, arraying the
applicant/petitioner as an accused, was filed. On 08.07.2025, charges were
framed against the applicant/petitioner under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the
NDPS Act. Currently, the trial is at the stage of the Prosecution Evidence
(PE), and the next date of hearing is 08.10.2026.
8. By order dated 07.04.2026, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bina
v. The State NCT of Delhi , Bail Appln. 1340/2026 granted bail to the co-
accused Bina on the following terms:
“ 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present
case, including the period of custody already undergone by the

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 3 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

applicant, the fact that the trial is yet to commence and is likely to
take considerable time to conclude, and also taking into account
that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been
granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench, this Court is of the
opinion that, for the limited purpose of bail, the rigors of Section
37 of NDPS Act stand satisfied
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
9. It must be noted that bail to the co-accused Bina was granted, despite
the submission of the State that she was involved in two other cases under
the NDPS Act. Submissions to this effect were recorded as follows in the
aforesaid order dated 07.04.2026:
“ 7. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State strongly
opposes the present bail application and submits that the
allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and case
involves recovery of commercial quantities of narcotic substances.
It is argued that the applicant cannot claim parity with co-
accused Kamla since the other cases registered against Kamla
were under the Excise Act and not under the NDPS Act, whereas
the present applicant is involved in two other cases under the
NDPS Act along with co-accused.
It is therefore prayed that the
present bail application be dismissed. ”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the recovery
of 260 grams of heroin was a joint recovery from the house of the
applicant/petitioner and co-accused Bina (applicant’s/petitioner’s wife). This
fact was recorded by this Court in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order dated
07.04.2026. It is also submitted that the allegations against both the
applicant/petitioner and co-accused Bina are identical. To this effect, it can
be noted that the Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), North, Rohini Courts,
Delhi, in order dated 08.07.2025, in SC No. 698/2023 (‘ State v. Kamla &
Ors. ’), while framing charges, considered the case of Bina and Deepak

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 4 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

collectively, in the following terms:
“ 1. It is argued on behalf of accused Beena and Deepak that they
were not found in possession of heroin and grounds of arrest were
not explained to them prior to their arrest. It is further argued that
the recovered contraband has been planted upon them. Hence, no
offence against them is made out against accused Beena and
Deepak. ”
11. Learned APP for the State opposes the plea for parity on the ground

that the applicant/petitioner has several other cases, including four (4) cases
under the NDPS Act, pending against him, as opposed to the co-accused
Bina’s two (2) cases under the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court in Sagar v.
State of UP , 2025 INSC 1370 , held that parity, although not the sole factor,
is a relevant consideration in deciding bail applications. The Supreme Court
observed the following:
“ 14. What flows from the above judgments, which have been
referred to, only to the limited extent indicated above, is that the
High Courts speak in one voice that parity is not the sole ground on
which bail can be granted. That, undoubtedly, is the correct
position in law. The word ‘parity’ is defined by the Cambridge
Dictionary as “equality, especially of pay or position.” When
weighing an application on parity, it is ‘position’ that is the
clincher. The requirement of ‘position’ is not met only by
involvement in the same offence. Position means what the person
whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e., his
role etc. There can be different roles played – someone part of a
large group, intending to intimidate; an instigator of violence;
someone who throws hands at the other side, instigated by such
words spoken by another, someone who fired a weapon or swung a
machete – parity of these people will be with those who have
performed similar acts
, and not with someone who was part of the
group to intimidate the other by the sheer size of the gathering, with
another who attempted to hack away at the opposer’s limbs with a
weapon. ”
(emphasis supplied)

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 5 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

12. The Supreme Court in Sagar (Supra) affirmed and emphasised the
following holding of this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State , 2016 SCC
OnLine Del 4920 :
“ 15. … In this regard, this Court thinks fit to reiterate the settled
principle that in a criminal jurisprudence, every case stands on
different footings and no straightjacket formula can be adopted in the
facts of each case. No doubt, the weight of judicial parity should be
followed, but on the other hand, this Court is of the conscious opinion
that the word ‘parity’ connotes a state when a person is placed on the
same footing as of the other person. This court is also of the opinion
that that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail in a case
where the bail applications of other co-accused whose bail applications
had been allowed and are released on bail. It is purely a discretion of
the court. Before granting or refusing bail, the court must satisfy itself
after considering the material placed on record and further
developments in the investigations or otherwise and other peculiar
circumstances of each case, which show that there are sufficient
grounds for releasing the applicant on bail If on examination of any
case, it transpires that the case of the applicant before the court is
identically similar to the accused on facts and circumstances, who
has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require
that such an accused should be also released on bail
.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, on the touchstone of parity, the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of the same considerations which weighed with the Court qua
accused Bina.
14. The learned APP for the State also opposes the application on the
ground that the recovery is of 260 grams of heroin, which is a commercial
quantity. It is contended that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
shall, accordingly, be applicable and the same has not been satisfied in the
present case. Contra , the learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner
submits that the quantity allegedly seized, i.e. , 260 grams, is marginally

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 6 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

above the commercial quantity, i.e. , 250 grams, and therefore the rigours of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed.
15. In this regard, reference is apposite to the decision of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Vinay Sharma v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi ,
2025:DHC:6358 , wherein the following was remarked:
“ 7. Moreover, the quantity of Ganja allegedly recovered from the
applicant is only marginally above the threshold of commercial
quantity under the NDPS Act. The commercial quantity for Ganja
is 20 kilograms, whereas the alleged recovery in the present case is
21.508 kilograms. In such a scenario, the strict application of the
rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be justified and
warrants a more nuanced consideration.
”
(emphasis supplied)
16. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sunny v. State of NCT of
Delhi , 2008/2026 , on 07.10.2026, has observed as follows:
“ 20. Admittedly, the recovery made from the applicant was 259
gms, which is marginally above the commercial quantity,
prescribed under the NDPS Act of 250 gms. In such
circumstances, the strict application of the rigours of the NDPS
Act may not be justified and warrants a more nuanced
consideration
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Furthermore, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurprabh Singh
@ Prince v. State of Punjab , 2025:PHHC:027809 , observed as under:
“ 6. In the cases of ‘Sukhchain Singh @ Manga Versus State of
Punjab, CRM-M-7857-2022 decided on 04.04.2022, Pardeep Singh
versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-46244-2022 decided on
19.01.2023, Hari Yadav @ Haiya versus State of Punjab (CRM-M-
37645-2021)’ decided on 11.11.2022, ‘Jang Kanwar Versus State
of Punjab (CRM-M-53415-2021)’ decided on 19.01.2022, ‘
Shankar Prashad Chanau Versus The State of Punjab, CRM-M-
24090-2020, decided on 27.08.2020, Gurpreet Kumar Versus State
of Punjab, CRM-M-17021-2021, decided on 31.08.2021, Salim

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 7 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

Versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-42436-2020, decided on
24.02.2021, Gagandeep Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-3055-
2021, decided on 27.01.2021, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Versus State
of Punjab, CRM-M-41039-2019, decided on 26.02.2020, Dalbara
Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-47880-2022 decided on
16.01.2023’, and Vivek Watts versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-
13791-2022 decided on 15.02.2023, where the recovery from the
accused was marginally above the commercial quantity for the
respective contraband in each case, the Court granted bail to the
accused therein
7. In the present case, the alleged recovery from the petitioner is of
261 grams of a narcotic substance containing the sale of ‘Tramadol
Hydrochloride’ which is
.
marginally above the commercial
quantity of 250 grams. The petitioner is a first time offender with
no other case under the NDPS Act registered against him. In this
situation, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be
relaxed to an extent
and the case of the petitioner can be
considered for the grant of bail, moreso, when he is in custody
since 13.09.2023 but none of the 13 prosecution witnesses have
been examined so far and a co-accused has already been granted
the similar relief. ”
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is noticed that in Abetoli Awomi v. The State NCT of Delhi ,
2026:DHC:1497 , a somewhat different tone was struck by a coordinate
Bench of this Court. It was observed as under:
“ 12. Allegedly, recovery of 57 grams of amphetamine drug has
been effected from the possession of the applicant, which prima
facie exceeds the threshold of 50 grams for qualifying commercial
quantity thereby bringing the case within the fold of the special
restrictions engrafted for offences involving commercial quantity.
Therefore, there is a clear embargo on bail as provided under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the requirements therein are not
mere empty formalities but constitute a legislative mandate which
has to be considered where there is a recovery of commercial
quantity and can only be relaxed on careful appraisal of the
material. Reference in this connection can be made to Union of
India v. Ram Samujh [(1999) 9 SCC 429], Union of India v. Ajay
Kumar Singh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 346] and Union of India v.

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 8 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

Vigin K. Varghese [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2440]. ”
(emphasis supplied)

19. This Court in Ashok Kumar @ Lala v. The State of NCT of Delhi
,
2024:DHC:7685 , has observed that “ it would have to be examined in trial
whether the quantity was in fact commercial or intermediate in nature
, in
recovery ”.
20. The position that emerges from a consideration of the dicta in the
aforesaid judgments is that in a given factual context, the marginal
difference between the extent of recovered quantity vis-a-vis commercial
quantity can be a relevant aspect in ascertaining whether the rigours of the
criterion statutorily incorporated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is satisfied
or not.
21. The prism through which the matter is to be examined has been
succinctly set out by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of
Delhi) , (2023) 18 SCC 166 , wherein it was, inter alia , observed as under:
“ 21.
A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under
Section 37 (i.e. that court should be satisfied that the accused is
not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively
exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention
and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the
only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under
Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is
where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at
the material on record (whenever the bail application is made)
that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation would
result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of
offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the
court would look at the material in a broad manner, and
reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The
judgments of this Court have, therefore, emphasised that the
satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e. that the
22.

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 9 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a
reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous
examination of the materials collected during investigation
(as
held in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik [(2009) 2 SCC 624] ).
Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to
be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section
436-A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref.
Satender Kumar Antil [(2022) 10 SCC 51] ). Having regard to
these factors the Court is of the opinion that in the facts of this
case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. ”
(emphasis supplied)
This is relevant for the purpose of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS
Act
22. In the present case, as has been brought out by the applicant, the
recovery of 260 grams of heroin is marginally above the notified
commercial quantity of 250 grams. It must be noted that, as per the
Supplementary Chargesheet, 260 grams includes the weight of “ transparent
wax bag ”. The net weight of the seized contraband is not clearly borne out
from the record.
23. With regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant which has not
resulted in conviction, the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of
U.P. , held that several criminal cases against the
, (2020) 11 SCC 648
applicant cannot automatically strip the applicant of his right to seek bail, it
was observed as under:-
“ 7. … The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there
are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These
factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for
bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to
the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No
ex facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which
would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We
accordingly sustain the order of the High Court granting bail. This

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 10 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

appeal is dismissed. ”
(emphasis supplied)

24. Furthermore, the concern that the applicant might engage in

offensive/criminal conduct can be addressed by imposing stringent bail
conditions.
25. What also weighs with this Court is that the applicant/petitioner has
been in custody for more than two (2) years, with the trial far from
concluding. In Man Mandal v. State of West Bengal , 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1868, where the seizure was commercial in nature, and the applicant had
been incarcerated for about two years, and there was no prospect for the trial
to be concluded soon, the Supreme Court, while granting bail, stated as
under:
“ 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have been
incarcerated for a period of almost two years and the trial is not
likely to be taken up for hearing in the immediate near future, we
are inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. ”
26. In Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109,
where a recovery of 247 kgs of Ganja was made, and the applicant had been
in custody for more than three and a half years, the Court held as under:
“ 4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly
heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the
2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the
same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent
more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged
incarceration, generally militates against the most precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must
override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
of the NDPS Act. ”

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 11 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

(emphasis added)
27. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is granted
regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The same shall
be subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall attend every hearing unless exempted by the
trial Court.
b. The applicant shall not leave NCT of Delhi or travel out of the

country without prior permission of the trial Court;
c. The applicant shall provide his permanent address to the trial
Court, and also the address where he will be residing during the
pendency of the case;
d. The applicant shall intimate the Investigating Officer (IO) and
file an affidavit before the trial Court regarding any change in
his residential address;
e. The applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the
Investigating Officer (IO)/Station House Officer (SHO)
concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all
times. The mobile number shall be kept switched on, with
location services enabled at all times, and the same shall be
shared with the IO. The mobile number shall not be changed
without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of the
trial;
f. The applicant shall report to the IO as and when called for by
the IO;
g. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact the

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 12 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08

complainant, any prosecution witness, and their family
members;
h. The applicant 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;
i. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity during
the period of bail; and
j. The applicant shall report to the concerned SHO, on the first
Monday of every month at 11:00 a.m. and be discharged by
12:00 noon, after recording his presence and completion of the
necessary formalities.
28. In the case of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be

entitled to seek cancellation of bail.
29. Nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an observation on
the merits of the case. The trial shall be decided on its own merits, without
being influenced by any observation made in this order.
30. A status report has been handed over during the course of the hearing.
The same is stated to have been filed in the Registry of this Court. Let the
same be placed on record.
31. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ uk/vk

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3931/2026 Page 13 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:09:08