Narender vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: 03 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010459322026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4050/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29971/2026
NARENDER .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pranav Prakash Sharma, Adv.
M: 7404905856

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
M: 9868632122
SI Sohan Thakur/ANS/OND
M: 9716702170

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 read with
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), on
behalf of the petitioner, i.e., Narender, S/o Rajesh, seeking grant of regular
bail in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No.
th
590/2025 dated 29 August, 2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), at Police
Station (“PS”) Bhalswa Dairy, Outer North, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 1 of 12

2. Subsequently, upon completion of the investigation, a Chargesheet
came to be filed by the Investigating Officer (“IO”), whereby, the petitioner
herein was charged under Sections 21/25/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. This Court is informed that the petitioner had earlier preferred an
application for regular bail before the Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”)
(Special Judge – NDPS Act), Rohini Courts, Delhi, which came to be
th
dismissed vide order dated 09 September, 2026, passed in IA 13/2026 in SC
125/2026 .
4. The case being SC 125/2026 , arising out of FIR No. 590/2025 , is
pending adjudication before the ASJ (Special Judge – NDPS Act), Rohini
Courts, Delhi, and is presently at the stage of framing of charges.
5. The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the material on record,
is as follows:
th
5.1. On 29 August, 2025, acting on secret information regarding the supply
of heroin by one Afsana, i.e., co-accused no. 1, a raiding party was constituted
and a trap was laid behind Kalander Colony , Service Road , Bhalswa Dairy ,
Delhi .
5.2. At about 11:52 AM, co-accused no. 1 was apprehended and 300 grams
of heroin was recovered from the bag she was carrying. Thereafter, a case was
registered and further investigation was carried out.
5.3. During the interrogation, co-accused no. 1 disclosed that she used to
procure heroin from one Mansi @ Jyoti, and her husband, i.e., the petitioner
herein, who used to come to the petrol pump at Burari, Delhi, to supply heroin
on the instructions of his wife.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 2 of 12

5.4. Pursuant to the said disclosure and at the instance of co-accused no. 1,
the petitioner was apprehended along with his two-wheeler vehicle, near the
th
petrol pump at Burari, Delhi, on 29 August, 2025.
5.5. The petitioner was interrogated, and his disclosure statement was
recorded in respect of the aforesaid case. In addition, his vehicle was also
taken into custody by the police.
5.6. The petitioner, in his interrogation, disclosed that his wife/co-accused
no. 2, knew a woman named Santosh, i.e., co-accused no. 4, who was involved
in the supply of heroin. He further disclosed that co-accused no. 2 told him
that there was a large profit margin in the said business and that if they started
purchasing heroin from co-accused no. 4 and supplying it, they could earn
significant money.
5.7. Around six months prior to the interception, co-accused no. 2 started
buying heroin from co-accused no. 4. The petitioner is alleged to have
supplied the same to persons as directed by his wife.
5.8. The petitioner has stated that the recovery containing 300 grams of
heroin seized from co-accused no. 1 had earlier been sold to her on the
instructions given by co-accused no. 3 to the petitioner and that he had
supplied heroin to co-accused no. 1 on several occasions in the past near the
petrol pump in Burari, Delhi.
5.9. The petitioner also disclosed that if a raid was conducted at his
residence in Burari, Delhi, a significant quantity of heroin could be recovered
from there.
5.10. Subsequently, at the instance of co-accused no. 1 and the petitioner
herein, co-accused no. 3 was apprehended near her residence in Burari, Delhi.
A search was conducted at the house of the petitioner, during which a total of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 3 of 12

712 grams of heroin was recovered, which was seized and deposited in the
malkhana of PS Bhalswa Dairy. Following the said recovery, co-accused no.
3 came to be arrested.
5.11. During interrogation, co-accused no. 3 disclosed that she used to
procure heroin from co-accused no. 4, who is a resident of Madipur, Delhi,
for the purpose of supplying it further. At the instance of co-accused no. 3, a
raid was conducted at the house of co-accused no. 4, but her house was found
locked.
5.12. Thereafter, during further course of investigation and on receipt of a
th
secret information, co-accused no. 4 was arrested on 05 September, 2025,
and a recovery of 97 grams of heroin was made from her house.
5.13. During interrogation, co-accused no. 4 disclosed that she used to
procure heroin from one Anil @ Bhola, i.e., co-accused no. 5, for supplying
it further to Renu Nagia @ Sonia and Nitin @ Arujun, i.e., co-accused nos. 6
and 7, respectively, residing in Andha Mughal, Delhi.
5.14. At the instance of co-accused no. 4, a raid was conducted at the address
of co-accused nos. 6 and 7, but their houses were found locked.
th
5.15. On 09 September, 2025, co-accused no. 5 also came to be arrested and
a recovery of 1.992 grams of heroin was made from his house.
5.16. During the course of investigation, co-accused nos. 6 and 7 were
arrested in connection with FIR No. 45/25 , registered under Section 21 of the
NDPS Act, at PS Crime Branch, Delhi. After that, permission for
interrogation and formal arrest of co-accused no. 6 was obtained and she was
th nd
formally arrested on 16 October, 2025. Thereafter, on 22 October, 2025,
co-accused no. 7 was also formally arrested in the present case.
5.17. The brief details of recovery in the present case are as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 4 of 12

“xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”
6. In support of the present petition, the following has been submitted on
behalf of the petitioner:
6.1. The investigation in the present case is complete and the IO has filed a
Final Report/Chargesheet before the Special Court.
6.2. The case as stated by the prosecution is highly doubtful and the IO has
made the petitioner a scapegoat by falsely implicating him.
6.3. No independent witnesses were present during the search of the
accused. Thus, the lack of independent witnesses undermines the claim of the
prosecution of valid search and seizure.
6.4. The Examination Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”)
th
dated 07 April, 2026, has established that the substance recovered from the
petitioner does not contain the requisite chemical namely,
‘Diacetylmorphine’, which is classified as heroin under the NDPS Act.
6.5. The FSL report explicitly identifies the alleged substance as containing
‘6-Monoacetylmorphine’, ‘Acetaminophen’, ‘Codeine’, ‘Morphine’,
‘Acetylcodein’, ‘Trimethoprim’, and ‘Alprazolam’. This chemical
composition falls into the ‘degraded’ category of heroin.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 5 of 12

6.6. Additionally, Section 105 of the BNSS mandates that the process of
search and seizure be recorded through audio-video electronic means.
However, no such videography was provided to the petitioner.
th
6.7. The petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 08 October,
2025, passed by the ASJ (Special Judge – NDPS Act), Rohini Courts, Delhi,
th
which was extended by way of order dated 09 September, 2025, and further
th
extended by way of order dated 15 October, 2025. Another interim bail was
th
granted to the petitioner vide order dated 10 December, 2025. Upon the
expiry of the period of interim bail, the petitioner duly surrendered and did
not misuse the liberty.
7. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State
has vehemently opposed the present petition and has made the following
submissions:
7.1. A substantial quantity of heroin, precisely, 712 grams of heroin was
recovered from the house of the petitioner on the basis of his own disclosure
statement.
7.2. The quality of heroin recovered from the petitioner may have degraded
on account of the environmental conditions, however, there is strong
apprehension that the entire contraband comprised of ‘Diacetylmorphine’.
7.3. The petitioner has been in custody for only approximately one year and
charges are yet to be framed before the Special Court.
7.4. On one of the occasions when the petitioner was granted interim bail,
he surrendered five days later.
7.5. As regards the absence of videography, the requirement of video
recording of the search and seizure operation is directory and not mandatory.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 6 of 12

8. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the delay in surrendering on the previous occasion when he was granted
interim bail, was on account of some miscommunication.
9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, at the outset,
this Court notes that the recovery involved in the present case pertains to 712
grams of heroin. However, as per the FSL Report, only 54 grams of the
substance recovered at the instance of the petitioner contains
‘Diacetylmorphine’, i.e., heroin, which is an intermediate quantity of
contraband in terms of the NDPS Act. As per the same report, the remaining
constituents that have been identified do not fall within the classification of
heroin under the NDPS Act.
10. 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

18 . It is plain from a bare reading of the non obstante clause in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act and sub-section (2) thereof that the
power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed
offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations
imposed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, it is also subject to the restrictions placed by clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving
an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application
for such release, the other twin conditions viz. (i) the satisfaction
of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied.
It is manifest that the conditions are cumulative and not
alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused
being not guilty, has to be based on “reasonable grounds”.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 7 of 12

19 . The expression “reasonable grounds” has not been defined
in the said Act but means something more than prima facie
grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing
that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with.
The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence
of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves
to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence (vide Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7
SCC 798). Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects,
noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the
NDPS Act .

20 . We may, however, hasten to add that while considering an
application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, the court is not called upon to record a finding of “not
guilty”. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to
weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as
to whether or not the accused has committed offence under the
NDPS Act. What is to be seen is whether there is reasonable
ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to
commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. The
satisfaction of the court about the existence of the said twin
conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the
question of releasing the accused on bail .
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 8 of 12

(v) The Intelligence Officer, N.C.B. Zonal Unit Lucknow, has
stated on oath that the sample was tested by the Government
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 .
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Similarly, in the case of Dharmender Versus the State , this Court vide
rd
order dated 23 December, 2020, passed in BAIL APPLN 3576/2020 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 9 of 12

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)

12. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
recovery of substance at the behest of the petitioner falls within the
intermediary category, and thus, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are not applicable.
13. Pertinently, it is noted that co-accused no. 4, from whom recovery of
97 grams of heroin was made has also been released on bail vide order dated
th
07 March 2026, passed by the ASJ (Special Judge – NDPS Act), Rohini
Courts, Delhi.
14. It is further noted that investigation in the present matter is complete
and a Chargesheet has already been filed. The trial has not yet commenced
and charges are yet to be framed. The prosecution has cited 23 witnesses, none
of whom have been examined to date. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial is
likely to take considerable time.
rd
15. The latest Nominal Roll dated 03 March, 2026, furnished by the Jail
Authorities, shows that the petitioner has already undergone 11 months and
nd
29 days of custody as on 02 October, 2026, and that the conduct of the
petitioner has been satisfactory.
16. The said Nominal Roll also discloses FIR No. 435/2025 registered
under Sections 341/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 10 of 12

at PS Burari, that is pending against the petitioner herein, and in which he has
been granted bail.
17. The apprehension of the State that the petitioner can influence the
witnesses or indulge in similar kind of offence can certainly be looked into by
imposing certain conditions.
18. 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, Delhi,
subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal 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 (“SHO”).
c. The petitioner shall furnish his 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, visit, or 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 trial proceedings. The IO is directed to monitor the situation and,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 11 of 12

in the event of any complaint being made, to inquire into the same in
accordance with law;
f. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the
proceedings;
19. The present bail application is allowed and accordingly disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.
20. 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.
21. A copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.


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

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:38:59
Page 12 of 12