Prahlad Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi

$~P-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 21.04.2026
Pronounced on: 13.05.2026
Uploaded on: 13.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025
PRAHLAD KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Mr. Raid
Hoda, Mr. Naveen Panwar,
Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
J U D G M E N T
1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the applicant seeks
regular bail in connection with FIR No. 473/2024 dated 13.12.2024,
registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Central District, Delhi, for the
offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“the NDPS Act”].
2. I have heard Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, learned counsel for the
applicant, and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State. The State has also placed on record a status
report dated 19.01.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 1 of 17

A. P ROSECUTION C ASE
3. The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the subject FIR and
the status report dated 19.01.2026, is as follows:
a. On the basis of secret information, a raid was conducted on the
intervening night of 12-13.12.2024, pursuant to which the applicant
was apprehended when he was walking from Qutub Road towards
New Delhi Railway Station. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act was served upon him.
b. The applicant was found carrying a maroon-coloured trolley bag, a
black-coloured trolley bag, and a black-coloured backpack, from
which a total of 24.850 kilograms of ganja [inclusive of the weight
of the packing material] was recovered. The present case thus
involves a commercial quantity of ganja . The contraband was
seized and deposited in the Police Station malkhana .
c. During interrogation, the applicant disclosed that he had purchased
the seized ganja from one Ritu Kumar of Brahmpur, Orissa. He
further stated that he had no knowledge about the whereabouts of
the said person.
d. A raid was conducted at Brahmpur, Orissa, at the instance of the
applicant; however, Ritu Kumar was not found.
e. The applicant’s mobile phone was thereafter seized and was sent
for technical analysis, which revealed a number [9310380733]
saved under the name of Ritu Kumar. The said number was found
to be registered under the name of one Sameer Kumar Patra. The
Call Detail Record further revealed that the applicant and co-
accused Sameer Kumar Patra were in contact, and their location
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 2 of 17

was at Brahmpur, Orissa, at the time of alleged delivery of the
ganja , i.e. between 09.12.2024 and 11.12.2024.
f. On 03.01.2025, samples of the seized contraband were drawn
before the learned Magistrate. The samples were sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini [“FSL”] on 20.01.2025. As
per the result of the FSL report, “ On Physical, Microscopic,
Chemical & TLC examination, exhibits ‘1A’, ‘2A & ‘3A’ were
found to be ‘ganja’ ”.
g. On 22.05.2025, another raid was conducted at Village – Padmapur,
Dasamundali, District Ganjam, Orissa, and it was found that
Sameer Kumar Patra resided at the said address. However, he was
not found present there. His mother was present, and her statement
was recorded. A notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was
thereafter pasted at his house, but he failed to join investigation.
His application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed vide order
dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court.
h. A chargesheet was filed on 11.03.2025 with respect to the
applicant, and co-accused Sameer Kumar Patra is absconding.
Further investigation is still pending.
4. The Nominal Roll reflects that, as of 23.01.2026, the applicant had
been in judicial custody for a period of 1 year, 1 month, and 11 days. He
has thus now been in custody for a period of approximately 1 year and 5
months.
5. The applicant had earlier preferred a bail application before the
learned Special Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2025.
The Special Court noted that the allegations against the applicant were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 3 of 17

serious in nature, and that the matter was at an initial stage.
B. S UBMISSIONS BY L EARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE P ARTIES
6. Although several contentions have been raised in the bail
application, Mr. Aggarwal pressed only three of them at this stage:
a. Firstly, he submitted that the samples were sent to the FSL on
20.01.2025, i.e. after a delay of 17 days from the date of sampling
[03.01.2025] conducted before the learned Magistrate in terms of
Section 52A of the NDPS Act, in violation of Rule 13 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage,
Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 [“Sampling Rules”].
b. Secondly, Mr. Aggarwal submitted that there exists a discrepancy
in the weight of the contraband at the stage of registration of the
FIR and at the time of the sampling procedure before the learned
Magistrate, as also between the weight of the samples drawn
during the sampling procedure and that reflected in the FSL report,
thereby rendering the recovery doubtful.
c. Lastly, the description of the seized substance in the FIR, as well as
the seizure memo, viz. “ घासजैसाबदबूदारपदाथ Ŋ जोदेखनेसूंघनेओर
छूनेपरगाँजाजैसापरतीतहोरहाथा ” [which may be translated as
‘ grass-like, foul-smelling substance which appears to be ganja on
the basis of sight, smell, and touch ’], does not correspond to the
statutory definition of “ ganja ” as provided under Section 2(iii)(b)
of the NDPS Act, which requires the presence of “ flowering or
fruiting tops ”.
Mr. Aggarwal relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court as well as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 4 of 17

this Court in support of his contentions, to which I shall advert at the
appropriate stage in this judgment.
7. Per contra , Mr. Chauhan submitted as follows:
a. He submitted that the recovery in the present case pertains to a
commercial quantity of ganja [20 kilograms and above], and
accordingly, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
attracted. He further submitted that, charges having been framed, a
presumption arises in favour of the prosecution.
b. While Mr. Chauhan did not dispute that there was, in fact, a delay
of 17 days in sending the samples to the FSL, during which period
they remained stored in the malkhana , he submitted that no
prejudice was caused to the applicant, as the FSL report records
that the seals were found intact. He also drew my attention to the
seizure memo and the order of the learned Magistrate, both of
which record that the contraband was duly sealed.
c. Relying upon the FSL report dated 18.02.2025, a copy whereof
was handed up in Court during the hearing on 21.04.2026, he
submitted that each exhibit was described as containing “ Dried
greenish brown coloured flowering & fruiting vegetative material ”.
It was further found, upon physical, microscopic, chemical, and
TLC examination, that the substance was “ ganja ”.
NALYSIS
C. A
i. Re: Delay in sending the samples to the FSL
8. Mr. Aggarwal’s argument with regard to delay in sending of the
samples to the FSL is based upon Rule 13 of the Sampling Rules, which
reads as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 5 of 17

“ 13. Despatch of sample for testing .—(1) The samples after being
certified by the Magistrate shall be sent directly to any one of the
jurisdictional laboratories of Central Revenue Control Laboratory,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory or State Forensic Science
Laboratory, as the case may be, for chemical analysis without any
delay .
(2) The samples of seized drugs or substances shall be despatched
to the jurisdictional laboratories under the cover of the Test Memo,
which shall be prepared in triplicate, in Form-6.
(3) The original and duplicate of the Test Memo shall be sent to the
jurisdictional laboratory alongwith the samples and the triplicate shall
1
be retained in the case file of the seizing officer. ”
Mr. Aggarwal emphasised the use of words, “ shall be sent directly ” in
Rule 13(1) above.
9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that there was a delay
of 17 days in forwarding the samples to the FSL. The recovery was
effected from the applicant on 13.12.2024. Although the samples were
drawn before the learned Magistrate, in terms of Section 52A of the
NDPS Act, on 03.01.2025, they were sent to the FSL only on 20.01.2025.
During the intervening period, the samples remained in the malkhana .
10. Mr. Aggarwal relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
2
Surepally Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh , wherein the Court
was considering an argument of violation of Section 52A of the NDPS
3
Act, read with Standing Order No. 1/1989 , in a case involving 600
kilograms of ganja . The conviction of three appellants was set aside, on
the ground of improper sealing and delay in producing the seized
contraband before the Court.
1
Emphasis supplied.
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 683 [hereinafter, “ Surepally ”].
3
Standing Order No. 1/1989 dated 13.06.1989, prescribed the procedure for seizure and disposal of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, including the procedure for sampling and storage of
samples. It was repealed by Rule 29 of the Sampling Rules notified by the Ministry of Finance,
Revenue Department, on 23.12.2022.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 6 of 17

11. The Court noticed its earlier judgments inter alia in Noor Aga v.
4 5
State of Punjab , Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif , and Bharat
6
Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh , and held that a conviction can be
sustained, so long as the prosecution is able to demonstrate “ substantial
compliance ” with the statutory provision and the Standing Order. Mr.
Aggarwal, however, drew my attention to the following observations in
Surepally :
“ 13. In Bharat Aambale (supra), this Court held that the purport of
Section 52-A, NDPS Act read with Standing Order No. 1/89 extends
beyond mere disposal and destruction of seized contraband and
serves a broader purpose of strengthening the evidentiary framework
under the NDPS Act. This decision stresses upon the fact that what is
to be seen is whether there has been substantial compliance with the
mandate of Section 52-A and if not, the prosecution must satisfy the
court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the
accused. This is also what has been held in Kashif (supra).
14. In the present case, from the evidence on record, it can be seen and
it is clear that the seized contraband was not properly sealed. Coupled
with this is the fact of the seized contraband not being produced before
rd
the trial court prior to 3 July, 2010. It is difficult to accept the
prosecution case that though there may not have been strict
compliance of Standing Order No. 1/89, the seized contraband was not
tampered at all. Keeping of the seized contraband by PW-3 in a
separate room in his office for fifteen days could give rise to an
allegation that the seized contraband was by itself substituted and
some other items planted to falsely implicate the accused. To avoid
suspicious circumstances and to ensure fair procedure in respect of
search and seizure, it is always desirable to follow the standing order
which provides suitable guidance for the officers investigating crimes
under the NDPS Act. Should there be any departure, the same must
be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds. We are, satisfied, on
appreciation of the evidence on record, that the possibility of
tampering during this fifteen-day period cannot be totally ruled out
and that not only has there been no substantial compliance of the
standing order, the departure has also not been justified.
4
(2008) 16 SCC 417.
5
(2024) 11 SCC 372 [hereinafter, “ Kashif ”].
6
(2025) 8 SCC 452 [hereinafter, “ Bharat Aambale ”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 7 of 17

15. We have also found from the materials on record that there has
been clear non-compliance with the provisions contained in
Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Either possibly due to lack of
experience of the investigating officer or his lack of knowledge of the
relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, there were lapses which were
duly noted by the Sessions Judge. Thus, we are unable to hold that
there was primary and reliable evidence before the trial court in
respect of the offence committed. The onus of proving that
compliance with Section 52-A did not affect the case of the
7
prosecution has not been duly discharged by the prosecution . ”
Mr. Aggarwal emphasised that, if the Court finds a lack of substantial
compliance with the statutory provision, it is for the prosecution to prove
that the accused was not affected thereby.
12. Mr. Chauhan, however, submitted that, in Surepally , the seized
contraband was produced before the learned Magistrate after a delay of
15 days, and was not sealed properly, thereby lending support to the
allegation of possible tampering. However, in the present case, the
seizure memo, the order of the learned Magistrate, as well as the FSL
Report consistently record that the seals were found to be intact at all
relevant stages.
13. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Kashif and Bharat Aambale
make it clear that lapses or delays in compliance with Section 52A of the
NDPS Act and the allied rules constitute procedural irregularities, which
do not, by themselves, vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to bail. The
Court has emphasised the requirement of “ substantial compliance ”, rather
than a need for exact or meticulous conformity with the procedure.
However, Surepally places the onus upon the prosecution to prove that
non-compliance of the statutory provisions did not prejudice the accused.
7
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 8 of 17

14. In the present case, where the rules expressly provide that the
samples of contraband, once drawn, “ shall be sent directly ” to the FSL,
the delay of 17 days in doing so cannot be brushed aside as trivial or
insignificant. While the prosecution may be able to discharge the burden
of rebutting the allegation of prejudice, at the stage of trial, this is one of
the prima facie factors which, at this stage, would enure to the benefit of
the accused, particularly when analysed in conjunction with the argument
regarding discrepancies in weight of the samples, discussed below.
ii. Re: Discrepancy in the weight of the seized contraband
15. In the present case, the alleged contraband was recovered from a
maroon/cherry/red-coloured trolley bag [ Katta Exhibit-1], a black-
coloured backpack [ Katta Exhibit-2], and a black-coloured trolley bag
[ Katta Exhibit-3], all carried by the applicant. At the time of the seizure
on 13.12.2024, the weight of the contraband was determined by the
Investigating Officer, who first stood on a weighing scale with each bag
individually, and thereafter subtracted his own weight from the total
weight recorded on the scale to arrive at the weight of the contraband.
Thereafter, at the time of the sampling proceedings under Section 52A of
the NDPS Act before the learned Magistrate on 03.01.2025, the seized
contraband was again weighed. Two samples of 25 grams each were
drawn from each of the katta exhibits, and one sample from each katta
exhibit was sent to the FSL.
16. The weight of the contraband, as well as the samples drawn, at
each stage, is set out in the table below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 9 of 17

Exhibit 1 2 3
Weight recorded in
the Seizure Memo
13.75 kgs 6.15 kgs 4.95 kgs
13.35 kgs 5.80 kgs 5.00 kgs
Weight recorded at
the stage of Sampling
Proceedings u/s 52A
Difference (-) .40 kgs (-) .35 kgs (+) .05 kgs
Weight of the samples
drawn
2 samples of 25
gm each
2 samples of 25
gm each
2 samples of 25
gm each
Weight reflected in
the FSL Report
25.5 gm 29.6 gm 28.7 gm
Difference (+) .5 gm (+) 4.6 gm (+) 3.7 gm
17. The aforesaid record shows that the weight of the contraband
recorded at the time of seizure, and the weight recorded at the time of
sampling [20 days later], contained a variation of 700 grams in total [(-)
400 grams, (-) 350 grams, and (+) 50 grams in katta exhibits – 1, 2, and 3,
respectively]. Of greater statistical significance is the discrepancy
between the weight of samples drawn [25 grams each] and the weight of
the samples reflected in the FSL report [25.5 grams, 29.6 grams, and 28.7
grams]. The three samples, which collectively weighed 75 grams when
drawn before the learned Magistrate, thus weighed 83.8 grams as reported
in the FSL report.
18. Mr. Aggarwal submitted that the aforesaid discrepancy in the
weight of the samples casts doubt on the prosecution case, and supports
the applicant’s case for bail. In this regard, he relied upon a decision of a
8
coordinate Bench of this Court in Kadir v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi ,
wherein the accused was granted bail on the ground of a discrepancy
between the weight of the sample sent to the FSL and the weight recorded
in the examination report.
8
BAIL APPLN. 553/2023, decided on 20.04.2023 [hereinafter, “ Kadir ”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 10 of 17

19. In Kadir , samples weighing 100 grams each were drawn from the
main parcels, deposited in the malkhana , and thereafter sent to the FSL.
As per the examination report received from the FSL, the weight of the
samples were found to be 134.8 grams and 83.6 grams, respectively,
instead of 100 grams. This Court relied upon its earlier judgments in
9
Sanjay Prasad v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi and Mohd. Ramzan v.
10
State (NCT of Delhi) to hold that the discrepancy between the weight of
the samples seized under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and that
recorded in the FSL report “ erodes the credibility of the recovery
proceedings ”.
20. As in Kadir , the prosecution in the present case has failed to
furnish any explanation for the discrepancy of 8.8 grams between the
weight of the sample drawn before the learned Magistrate and that
recorded in the FSL report. This unexplained inconsistency, in my view,
casts a doubt on the integrity of the process adopted by the prosecution. A
difference of 8.8 grams [11.3% of the weight recorded at the time of
sampling and testing] also lends credence to the applicant’s argument
regarding the unexplained delay in sending the samples for testing.
iii. Re: Identification of the recovered substance as “Ganja”
21. In the present case, the FIR, the seizure memo, as well as the order
of the learned Magistrate under Section 52A of the NDPS Act refer to a
“ dry grass like substance ”, whereas the statutory definition requires the
presence of “ flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant ”. On this
basis, Mr. Aggarwal submitted that the recovered substance does not, in
9
CRL.A. 1074/2013, decided on 08.12.2015.
10
2005 SCC OnLine Del 512.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 11 of 17

fact, constitute “ ganja ” within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the
NDPS Act, which reads as follows:
“ (b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis
plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by
the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; ”
22. It may, however, be noted that the FSL report dated 18.02.2025
describes the exhibits as “ Dried greenish brown coloured flowering &
fruiting vegetative material ”, which, upon examination, was found to be
“ ganja ”.
23. In this regard, Mr. Aggarwal placed reliance on the judgments of
11
this Court in Ravina Kumari v. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Manjay
12
Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi . In both these cases, the seized goods
comprised a mixture of “ flowering buds and fruiting tops ” as well as
other materials such as leaves, stems, seeds, and stalk. Further, in Ravina
Kumari too, the FSL report opined that the exhibits were ganja ; however,
the Court held as follows:
“ 17. From the definition, it is evident that flowering buds and fruiting
tops of the cannabis plant would be covered under section 2 (iii)(b) but
merely leaves /seeds and stalks would not form a part of the definition
of “Ganja” unless accompanied by the flowering and fruiting tops.
18. This can be represented accurately by the below Venn diagram:-
19. Thus, the intention of the Legislature appears to be clear that in
11
2024 SCC OnLine Del 6748 [hereinafter, “ Ravina Kumari ”].
12
2026 SCC OnLine Del 1144 [hereinafter, “ Manjay Kumar ”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 12 of 17

case of Ganja, if it is merely Category A i.e. a homogenous mixture of
flowering buds and fruiting tops, then the same would fall within the
meaning of “Cannabis”, however, if it is merely Category B i.e. a
homogenous mixture of seeds/leaves/stalks without the fruiting tops
and buds, then the same would not attract the provisions of the NDPS
Act.
20. Though the position with respect to homogenous mixtures i.e.
Category A & B is clear, there is often a conundrum surrounding the
quantification of Category C, i.e. the overlap between Category A and
Category B constituting the heterogenous mixtures which include both
the flowering tops and fruiting buds, along with the stems/ leaves and
seed.
21. From the framework of the entire NDPS Act and a reading of S. 2
(iii)(b), it emerges that if the material seized is a heterogenous
mixture/Category C, constituting of Category A mixed with Category
B, the placebo material such as stalks/leaves/stems (Category B)
would not constitute an actual part of the drug and only the actual
content and weight of the narcotic drug (Category A) would be
relevant for determining whether it would constitute small quantity
or commercial quantity .
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
26. Pertinently, the recovered quantity of about 24.145 Kg was just
4.145 kgs more than the commercial quantity. Since, the entire
substance including stems/stalks and dried leaves were weighed
together without quantifying the weight of the flowering or fruiting
tops, the quantity of 'Ganja' seized from the Applicant may be less than
commercial quantity so as to attract Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The
weight of actual Ganja recovered is a matter of trial .
27. It has been consistently held that if there is a prima facie
discrepancy in what was seized and what was analysed and weighed
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not
guilty of offences dealing in commercial quantity. Consequently, the
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for grant of regular bail,
would not become applicable as has been held in the case of Ibrahim
13
Khwaja Miya Sayyed (Supra) .
14
28. In the case of Suresh Kumar (Supra) , the Coordinate Bench of
this Court gave benefit to the accused under Section 20 (b) (C) to 20
(b)(ii)(B) by observing that the weight of the contraband was not
precise and the actual quantity of Ganja seized could not be
determined because the FSL reflected that seeds, which do not come
within the definition of Ganja, were weighed along with the flowering
and fruiting tops. Thus, when there is a doubt on the actual amount
13
Ibrahim Khwaja Miya Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra , 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2873.
14
Suresh Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) , 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1209.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 13 of 17

of recovery of contraband, then this unexplained discrepancy would
result in a benefit accruing in favour of the bail applicant .
29. Similar observations have been made in the case of Rajesh Sharma
15 16 17
(Supra) , Bettanayaka (Supra) , Ratanlal (Supra) and Ratnesh
18
(Supra) .
30. In light of the above discussion, it is settled that if there is the
discrepancy in weight, as in the present case, the same would be a
19
matter of trial . ”
In Manjay Kumar , although this aspect was noted, the Court also made a
prima facie observation that the sampling procedure followed did not
comply with the requirements of the Sampling Rules.
24. At the outset, it may be noted that the present case involves seizure
of approximately 24.850 kilograms of ganja , which is only marginally
above the commercial quantity threshold of 20 kilograms. The FSL
report, placed before the Court, confirms that the samples were found to
be “ ganja ”. Although the FIR and seizure memo do not specifically refer
to flowering and fruiting tops, the substance was identified as ganja on
the basis of its physical characteristics, including sight, touch, and smell.
At this stage, I am, therefore, not inclined to conclude finally, that the
material does not fall within the definition of “ ganja ”.
25. The issue, however, remains as to whether the weight of the
flowering and fruiting tops, excluding grass-like material, exceeds 20
kilograms so as to constitute commercial quantity. The judgment in
Ravina Kumari makes it clear that only the actual content, excluding
seeds, stalks, and stems, is relevant for determining the quantity. Given
the narrow margin between the minimum threshold and the total alleged
15
Rajesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan , 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 485.
16
Bettanayaka v. State of Karnataka , 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3916.
17
Ratanlal Kharadi v. State of M.P. , 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6083.
18
Ratnesh v. State , 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9883.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 14 of 17

seizure of 24.850 kilograms, it is not possible, in the absence of specific
material, to determine whether the flowering and fruiting tops alone meet
the requirement of commercial quantity.
26. In view of the binding decisions of this Court, the precise quantity
of contraband cannot be ascertained at this stage, as the seized material
was weighed alongwith grass-like components which may fall outside the
statutory definition of “ ganja ”.
iv. Application of the aforesaid findings
27. Applying the aforesaid findings to the applicant’s entitlement to
bail, it may be noted that, at this stage, there exists a prima facie
ambiguity as to whether the quantity of contraband allegedly seized
[24.850 kilograms] exceeds the threshold of commercial quantity [20
kilograms and above]. While this issue will ultimately be decided at trial,
it nonetheless casts doubt on the applicability of the stringent conditions
governing bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
28. Further, the delay in sending the samples for testing, contrary to the
Sampling Rules, and the unexplained discrepancy of 8.8 grams between
the weight of the sample drawn before the learned Magistrate and that
recorded in the FSL report, raise serious doubts about the integrity of the
recovery. Although the prosecution may ultimately rectify this deficiency
through other evidence at trial, in my view, the accused ought to be given
the benefit of doubt at this stage.
29. The applicant has been in custody for approximately one year and
five months, and has no prior criminal involvement. While the
prosecution evidence has commenced, the prosecution has cited fifteen
19
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 15 of 17

witnesses, of whom only one has been examined. The trial is, therefore,
likely to take a substantial amount of time.
D. C ONCLUSION
30. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the applicant be
released on bail in connection with FIR No. 473/2024 dated 13.12.2024,
registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Central District, Delhi, for the
offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, subject
to furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-, with one surety of
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, and further subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall appear before the learned Special Court on each
and every date of hearing.
b. If the applicant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the
concerned Special Court, and shall not leave the country without
the prior permission of the concerned Special Court.
c. The applicant shall provide his permanent address to the Special
Court, as also the address where he is residing during the pendency
of the case. The applicant shall intimate the concerned
Investigating Officer [“IO”]/Station House Officer [“SHO”], and
file an affidavit before the Special Court, regarding any change in
residential address.
d. The applicant shall furnish his mobile numbers 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 16 of 17

e. The applicant shall report to the jurisdictional Police Station near
st
his place of residence on the 1 of every month at 04:00 PM, and
will be released within two hours, after completion of formalities.
f. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, visit, nor
offer any inducement, threat, or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
g. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence
nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice
the proceedings in the pending trial.
h. The applicant shall not commit any offence during the pendency of
the proceedings.
31. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
32. 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
they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.
33. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 13, 2026
pv/KA
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
BAIL APPLN. 4516/2025 Page 17 of 17