Hariom vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 29 October, 2026
nd
Pronounced on: 2 November, 2026
nd
Uploaded on: 2 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010505352026
+ CRL.A. 1047/2026 & CRL.M.A. 32999/2026
HARIOM .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Kundan
Kumar, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP with
Ms. Samridhi Dobhal and Ms.
Apoorv Paliya, Advocates. Inspector
Ritesh, SI Gagandeep.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. The present appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of
th
Organised Crime Act, 1999 [“MCOCA”], challenges the order dated 7
October, 2026, whereby the Special Court rejected the Appellant’s
application for regular bail in FIR No. 186/2025, registered at P.S.
Sultanpuri, Delhi, for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”], the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA. The
th
Appellant was arrested on 26 October, 2025 and has remained in custody,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 1 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

except for periods of interim bail granted by the Special Court.
th
2. The prosecution case originates from a raid conducted on 10 March,
2025, at premises E-4/13, Sultanpuri, resulting in the recovery of 385.53
grams (gross weight) of heroin, packed in sachets, and 47.09 grams of
Tramadol. During subsequent sampling proceedings, the recovered
contraband was found to be of intermediate quantity, and charges against co-
accused Amit were framed under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. The
investigation thereafter extended to an alleged organised drug syndicate
headed by Kusum, and Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA were invoked.
3. The Appellant is Kusum’s brother. The allegation against him is
principally one of financial facilitation. According to the prosecution, he
permitted his bank accounts and those of his sons to be used for receiving
and transferring proceeds generated from narcotics trafficking, and
facilitated the acquisition of immovable properties from those funds. No
contraband was recovered from him, nor is any specific act of procurement,
sale or transportation of narcotics directly attributed to him.
4. Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Kundan Kumar, counsel for the Appellant,
submits that the financial dealings relied upon by the prosecution have been
given a criminal character merely because they involved his sister and other
family members. The Appellant has been conducting legitimate business
through M/s Toshi Automobiles and M/s Raghav Enterprises, supported by
registration documents, banking records and income-tax returns. There is no
independent evidence establishing that the amounts received or transferred
by him originated from narcotics trafficking, or that he knowingly
participated in the activities of an organised crime syndicate. It is further
contended that the requirements of MCOCA are not satisfied, as there are no
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 2 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

previous chargesheets against the Appellant establishing his involvement in
any continuing unlawful activity. The Appellant has no previous criminal
antecedents and also seeks parity with co-accused Anuradha @ Chiku and
Deepa Singh, who have been granted bail by the Supreme Court and this
Court, respectively.
5. Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP for the State, opposes the appeal. He
relies upon credits aggregating approximately INR 2 crore in the Appellant’s
bank accounts between 2022 and 2025, the transfer of INR 20 lakh to
Kusum, and payments towards immovable properties purchased in the
names of the Appellant and Pooja Singh, Kusum’s daughter. Reliance is also
placed upon statements of protected witnesses and the confessional
statements recorded under Section 18 MCOCA, including that of the
Appellant himself. The State maintains that the Appellant knowingly acted
as a financial conduit for the syndicate, and that the conditions prescribed
under Section 21(4) MCOCA are not satisfied.
6. Section 21(4) MCOCA imposes conditions additional to those
governing bail under the general law. Where the Public Prosecutor opposes
release, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is
not likely to commit an offence while on bail. These requirements are
cumulative. In Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of
1
Maharashtra , the Supreme Court explained that the provision does not
require a positive finding of innocence. The Court must assess the material
on broad probabilities, paying particular attention to the accused’s
culpability and requisite mens rea , without undertaking a final determination
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 3 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

2
of guilt. In Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra , the
Supreme Court reiterated that the satisfaction contemplated by Section 21(4)
must rest on reasonable grounds, involving something more than a prima
facie assessment, while cautioning against a meticulous examination of
evidence at the stage of bail.
7. The Appellant’s objection concerning the absence of multiple
chargesheets against him individually does not advance his case. In Zakir
3
Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra , the Supreme Court clarified that
the requirement of earlier chargesheets concerns the organised crime
syndicate and not in respect of each person alleged to be its member. The
prosecution has referred to several earlier NDPS cases involving Kusum and
persons allegedly associated with her. The absence of previous chargesheets
against the Appellant, therefore, does not by itself render MCOCA
inapplicable. However, the existence of an organised crime syndicate does
not automatically establish the Appellant’s involvement in its activities. His
alleged role must be examined independently on the basis of the material
placed on record.
8. The financial material forms the principal basis of the prosecution
case. The State relies upon credits of approximately INR 2 crore in the
Appellant’s accounts over a period of several years. The existence of
substantial deposits cannot, however, be equated with the receipt of
proceeds of organised crime. The Appellant has produced documents
evidencing business activity, including an income-tax return for assessment
year 2024-25 reflecting gross business receipts of INR 34,73,300. That

1
(2005) 5 SCC 294.
2
(2007) 1 SCC 242.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 4 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

return does not, by itself, explain all the transactions relied upon by the
prosecution, particularly those pertaining to a subsequent financial year. It
does, however, establish that the Appellant was engaged in business, a
circumstance which must be considered when assessing the nature of credits
in his accounts. The mere volume of credits in the Appellant’s accounts,
without distinguishing between legitimate business receipts and transactions
allegedly linked to the syndicate, is insufficient to establish that the entire
amount represents proceeds of organised crime.
9. The State places particular emphasis on a cash deposit of INR 20 lakh
th
in the account of M/s Raghav Enterprises on 29 August, 2024, followed by
a transfer of the same amount to Kusum’s account the following day. The
banking records support the movement of funds. While the prosecution
alleges that the amount represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking, the
Appellant contends that he transferred it to his sister to assist her in
purchasing property. The bank statements may establish the movement of
funds, but do not, by themselves, establish their unlawful origin or the
Appellant’s knowledge thereof. The mere fact that the amount was
transferred to Kusum is also insufficient to establish his participation in the
activities of the alleged organised crime syndicate.
10. The prosecution also relies upon the purchase of adjoining
agricultural properties at Village Godha, Aligarh, under registered sale deeds
th
dated 15 May, 2025, one in the Appellant’s name and the other in the name
of Pooja Singh. The status report records that payments towards both
properties were made from the Appellant’s accounts, preceded by
substantial cash deposits. This is a circumstance requiring explanation,

3
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1092.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 5 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

particularly insofar as payments were made towards a property acquired in
another person’s name. The prosecution further alleges that the properties
were purchased for approximately INR 90 lakh. However, the status report
records a sale consideration of INR 25 lakh for the property purchased in
Pooja Singh’s name, while the payments detailed for both properties
aggregate to INR 50 lakh. The higher figure of INR 90 lakh is principally
attributed to the statements recorded during investigation. More importantly,
the documentary material concerning these purchases does not, by itself,
establish that the funds were derived from organised crime. The distinction
between an inadequately explained financial transaction and one knowingly
undertaken for an organised crime syndicate cannot be overlooked.
11. The statement of protected witness ‘NK’ refers to a deposit of INR 2
lakh into the Appellant’s bank account from funds provided by Kusum’s
daughter, Pooja, for the purchase of land in Bulandshahr. Although the
witness has referred to subsequently learning about the involvement of
Kusum and her family in narcotics trafficking, he does not attribute any such
activity or knowledge of the unlawful source of funds specifically to the
Appellant. The prosecution also relies upon the statement of Ravi Kumar @
Sunny, who subsequently became an approver. His account concerning the
Appellant’s involvement is, however, general in nature and partly based on
information received from another accused. Neither statement independently
identifies any specific act of sale or supply of narcotics by the Appellant.
12. The Appellant’s confessional statement recorded under Section 18
MCOCA requires separate consideration. According to the statement
reproduced in the chargesheet, the Appellant acknowledged that he was
aware of the unlawful source of the funds and had permitted his and his
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 6 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

sons’ bank accounts to be used for routing proceeds from narcotics sales in
consideration of a commission. The statement also refers to the transfer of
INR 20 lakh and the acquisition of immovable properties. This material
cannot be disregarded. Section 18 MCOCA expressly provides for the
admissibility of confessions recorded by specified police officers, subject to
the statutory safeguards. Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of
4
Maharashtra , the Supreme Court, while deciding appeals arising from
convictions and acquittals after trial, held that a confession duly recorded
under Section 18 MCOCA constitutes substantive evidence and may, by
itself, form the basis of conviction. The decision thus recognises the
evidentiary significance of such confessions. However, the present
proceedings concern an application for bail, where the Court is required to
assess the material on broad probabilities in terms of Section 21(4)
MCOCA, rather than undertake a final determination of guilt.
13. The banking and property records lend support to certain transactions
described in the Appellant’s alleged confession. However, they do not,
prima facie , independently establish the unlawful origin of the funds, the
Appellant’s knowledge thereof, or the alleged receipt of commission. This
does not render the confession inadmissible or make independent
corroboration an inflexible requirement. It does, however, bear upon the
assessment of the prosecution material on broad probabilities, particularly
when the Appellant has produced records of legitimate business activity and
offered an explanation for the transactions. These questions will require
examination at trial, where the evidentiary value of the confession and the
financial records can be assessed together.

4
(2010) 14 SCC 641.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 7 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

14. The orders concerning Anuradha and Deepa also deserve
consideration. Anuradha’s appeal against refusal of bail was dismissed by
th
this Court on 6 January, 2026. The Supreme Court, however, by order
th
dated 24 July, 2026, set aside that judgment and granted her bail, taking
into account her period of incarceration, the fact that she is a woman, and
the intermediate quantity of contraband. Thereafter, Deepa was granted bail
th
by this Court on 29 September, 2026, upon finding that her role and
circumstances did not materially distinguish her from Anuradha. The order
of the Supreme Court does not contain any finding exonerating Anuradha on
the merits, nor does it dispense with the requirements of Section 21(4) for
other accused. Nevertheless, the prosecution material against both sisters
included allegations of direct involvement in the narcotics trade, substantial
financial transactions and the routing of alleged proceeds through banking
channels. The Appellant’s role and personal circumstances are not identical,
and his own confessional statement is an additional circumstance requiring
consideration. The earlier orders are therefore not conclusive on parity, but
remain relevant to the overall assessment of his entitlement to bail.
15. Having considered the material as a whole, this Court is satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Appellant is not guilty of
the offences alleged under MCOCA, for the limited purpose of Section
21(4)(b). While the prosecution material raises serious suspicion regarding
his financial dealings with the alleged syndicate, the independent evidence
does not sufficiently establish the unlawful origin of the funds or his
knowing participation in organised crime. The circumstances discussed
above, considered cumulatively, satisfy the statutory threshold at this stage,
without requiring the Court to undertake a conclusive assessment of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 8 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

prosecution case.
16. The second requirement under Section 21(4) is also satisfied. The
Appellant has no reported previous criminal antecedents and was granted
interim bail on several occasions, aggregating approximately 103 days,
without any reported misuse of liberty. Although the prosecution has
referred to an allegation of intimidation of a protected witness by persons
associated with the syndicate, no such act is attributed to the Appellant.
These circumstances, considered alongside the nature of his alleged role,
provide sufficient grounds to believe that he is unlikely to commit an
offence under MCOCA while on bail. Appropriate conditions can also
address the apprehension of interference with witnesses or the proceedings.
th
17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 7 October,
2026, is set aside. The Appellant shall be released on regular bail in FIR No.
186/2025, P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi, upon furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of INR 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction
of the Special Court, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date fixed,
unless exempted in accordance with law.
(b) He shall not directly or indirectly contact, threaten, induce or
influence any prosecution witness, or otherwise interfere with the evidence.
(c) He shall furnish his current residential address and mobile number to
the Investigating Officer and shall intimate any change to the Investigating
Officer and the Trial Court.
(d) He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court
and shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court.
(e) He shall report to the SHO of P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahr, Uttar
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 9 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34

Pradesh, on the first Monday of every month, between 10:00 AM and 5:00
PM, until further orders of the Trial Court.
(f) He shall cooperate with the proceedings and shall not misuse the
liberty granted to him.
18. Any violation of these conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek
cancellation of bail in accordance with law. The observations made herein
are confined to the consideration of the present appeal and shall not
influence the Trial Court in determining the charges or appreciating the
evidence.
19. The appeal, along with pending applications, if any, stands disposed
of.


SANJEEV NARULA, J
NOVEMBER 02, 2026/ng
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1047/2026 Page 10 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:34