Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 06.12.2025
Date of Decision: 19.12.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 4043/2025
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh,
Special Counsel with Mr. Shashi Shekhar,
Ms. Samridhi Dobhal, Mr. Krishna Mohan
Chandel, Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Mr. Mayank
Kaushik, Advs, and I.O, Shailesh Kumar,
Insp. Rahul Kumar, Special Cell, TYR
versus
MAYANK JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. B. S. Jakhar, Mr. Vikram
Singh Jakhar, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Ms. Bhawna
Jakhar, Mr. Neeraj Jakhar, Mr. Viraj Rathee,
Ms. Aastha Gautam, Mr. Mohit Yadav, Ms.
Nidhi Jakhar, Mr. Shubham Dabas Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
J U D G M E N T
%
1. The present petition has been filed by the
petitioner/State/prosecution against the respondent/accused Mayank
Jain under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
1
2023 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
2
1973 ), read with Section 483(3) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section
439(2) of the CrPC) seeking setting aside of the order dated
14.05.2025 passed by learned ASJ, Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala
1
Hereinafter “BNSS”
2
Hereinafter “CrPC”
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 1 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
3
House Court, New Delhi in application seeking anticipatory bail to
respondent in FIR No. 455/2024 dated 02.10.2024, under Sections
8/20/21/25/27(A)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
4
Substances Act, 1985 , PS - Special Cell, Delhi.
Factual Matrix
2. The case is based on a secret information received by the
Special Cell on 01.10.2024. Acting on this information, a police team
led by SI Abhishek Joshi conducted a raid at House No. A-3, Khasra
No. 386/2, Gali No. 2, Mahipalpur Extension, Delhi. Three persons,
namely Tushar Goyal, Himanshu Kumar, and Aurangzeb Siddiqui,
were apprehended when they came out of the premises. From their
possession, the police recovered 5.640 kg, 5.240 kg, and 5.220 kg of
contraband respectively, consisting of cocaine like substance. On their
instance, the police searched the same building and recovered a further
547 kg of cocaine and 39.706 kg of hydroponic marijuana, all kept in
the said premises.
3. On the basis of disclosures of these arrested persons, the police
later apprehended one Bharat Kumar, a resident of Mumbai, who had
arrived to receive the consignment. On 03.10.2024, Jatinder Singh
Gill @ Jassi, a resident of Amritsar and an NRI settled in the United
Kingdom for 27 years, was detained at Amritsar Airport and arrested.
On 05.10.2024, a Fortuner vehicle used by Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi
for movement in Punjab was searched, and 1.096 kg of contraband
was recovered from it. The vehicle belongs to one Ravinder, the
brother of alleged kingpin Virender Singh Baisoya @ Viru.
3
Hereinafter “learned ASJ/Special Judge”
4
Hereinafter “NDPS Act”
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 2 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
4. Further recoveries followed in the investigation. On 10.10.2024,
a consignment of 208 kg of suspected contraband was recovered from
Ramesh Nagar, Delhi, packed inside “Chatpata Namkeen” packets. On
13.10.2024, another recovery of 518.18 kg of mephedrone was made
from the premises of Aavkar Drug Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 3708, GIDC
Estate, Ankleshwar, District Bharuch, Gujarat.
5. The total recovery in the case reached 1289 kg of
cocaine/mephedrone and 39.706 kg of hydroponic marijuana across
Delhi, Gujarat, Punjab, and Mumbai. Fourteen persons were arrested,
whose details, including addresses, dates of arrest and recovery linked
to each of them, are recorded in the chargesheet.
6. During investigation, the police seized multiple DVRs and 29
mobile phones. Sixteen phones were analyzed by CERT-IN and data
was retrieved. FSL reports confirmed the presence of cocaine,
mephedrone, benzoylecgonine, and ganja in the seized samples.
Results for some samples remain pending.
7. Investigation further revealed that alleged kingpins Virender
Singh Baisoya @ Viru and Sandip Sansar Dhunay were operating an
international drug cartel involving the United Kingdom, Malaysia,
Pakistan, Thailand and Dubai. Email accounts of the fictitious firms
used for drug distribution, Pharma Solution Services, RM Biochem
and Life Saver Pharmawere traced to locations in Pakistan and
Malaysia.
8. During the investigation, the police issued Notices under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act to Mayank Jain and Anchit Jain, both
stated to be operating from Thailand. They did not join investigation.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 3 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
5
Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against both on 07.01.2025, but
execution failed as their houses in Delhi were found locked.
Proceedings under Section 84 BNSS were initiated on 07.02.2025. A
Look Out Circular was issued on 12.02.2025. They were detained at
IGI Airport when they returned from Thailand on 27.04.2025, but due
to interim protection granted by the Special Court, they were
permitted to leave after identification.
9. Both Mayank Jain and Anchit Jain filed anticipatory bail
applications on 02.04.2025 and 04.04.2025 respectively. The learned
ASJ, on 15.04.2025, directed them to appear and join investigation
with the mobile phones used by them for the last one year and granted
interim protection.
10. On 01.05.2025, the High Court directed the learned ASJ to
decide the pending anticipatory bail applications of both accused on
09.05.2025 or within one week thereafter. On 09.05.2025, the learned
ASJ also recorded the statement of the Investigating Officer on oath, a
step which the State asserts is legally impermissible at the anticipatory
bail stage and amounts to conducting a “mini-trial”.
11. On 14.05.2025, the learned ASJ granted anticipatory bail to the
respondent. On 16.05.2025, Mayank Jain was formally arrested and
released the same day upon furnishing bail bonds, in view of the
anticipatory bail order. The State thereafter filed the present petition
seeking quashing and cancellation of the order dated 14.05.2025,
alleging non-compliance by the accused, suppression of material facts
and failure to join investigation.
5
Hereinafter “NBWs”
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 4 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
12. Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, learned SPP for the State submits
that the instant FIR was registered, after recovery of a massive
narcotics consignment from different locations. A coordinated
operation from 01.10.2024 onward resulted in recovery of 39.706 kg
hydroponic marijuana and a total 1,289 kg of cocaine/mephedrone
from different locations including Mahipalpur, Ramesh Nagar (Delhi)
and Ankleshwar (Gujarat).
13. It is submitted that the present case, against Mayank Jain,
concerns the chain relating to 39.076 kg of hydroponic marijuana
forming part of a transaction where the total value of narcotics has
been assessed by the investigating team at around Rs. 10,000 crores,
thus involving grave offences and commercial quantity attracting the
rigors of section 37 NDPS Act.
14. The State contends that there is substantial prima facie evidence
connecting Mayank Jain to the marijuana supply, which includes his
admitted presence in Phuket, Thailand in June 2024 contemporaneous
with the alleged conspiracy meeting; multiple witness statements
under Section 180 BNSS from Ishant Bhatia, Gaurav Gambhir and
Sagar Tuteja confirming that they saw Mayank Jain, along with Ritik
Bajaj and Tushar Goyal, together in Phuket and identifying his
Thailand mobile number as +66-961145467; the statement of travel
agent Mukesh Mehra under section 180 BNSS that he booked tickets
for Mayank Jain and Ritik Bajaj from Delhi to Phuket and was in
contact with Mayank Jain on the same Thai number; and the statement
of Tilak Sharma (PD) recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 5 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
which Tilak links Mayank Jain to marijuana consignments smuggled
from Thailand by Tilak to India.
6
15. Further, the Call Data Records and WhatsApp data extracted
from co-accused Tushar Goyal’s phone show more than 600
contacts/call logs (calls/WhatsApp communication) between Mayank
Jain’s Thai number 66-961145467 and Tushar’s device during the
relevant period, as well as around 10 contacts/call logs with the
number attributed to co-accused Anchit Jain, and that a WhatsApp
voice-note dated 27.06.2024 from Tushar to this Thai number refers to
“ “Veeru bhai se baat ho gayi hai…” and further instructs,
“…deliveries sambhal lena.” , which is consistent with the prosecution
case about Virender Baisoya and drug deliveries.
16. The State also points to a WhatsApp group including Mayank
Jain and “Hunterz Lounge London c/o Veeru”, which is presented as
further corroboration of cartel linkage. According to the prosecution,
hotel records of Grand Shobha Hotel, Mahipalpur, showing guest
entries between 29–31.08.2024 and 29–30.09.2024, corroborate the
timing and location of marijuana deliveries at Mahipalpur in line with
the disclosure of co-accused and the movements of carriers. It is also
alleged that co-accused Himanshu, in disclosure, has specifically
stated that on the instructions of Tushar Goyal he collected two
suitcases of marijuana from Mahipalpur and that Mayank Jain’s name
features in that context, which is said to be supported by CDR analysis
and FSL reports on the seized substance.
7
17. A Look-Out Circular was opened against both accused persons
(Mayank Jain and Anchit Jain) on 12.02.2025, as they were
6
Hereinafter “CDRs”
7
Hereinafter “LOC”
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 6 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
deliberately avoiding investigation and not obeying court directions
requiring appearance before the IO. They remain non-cooperative
throughout and never offered their working mobile phones despite
repeated directions.
18. The petitioner further relies on precedents such as
8
Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala , Union of India v. Rattan
9 10
Mallik , Union of India v. Ram Samujh , and Anarul Sk v. State of
11
West Bengal to contend that in NDPS cases involving commercial
quantity, courts must adopt a strict approach and cannot grant bail
without recording satisfaction on the twin requirements that there are
reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely
to commit an offence while on bail.
19. The State further submits that Mayank Jain has not complied
fully and bona fide with the directions of the learned ASJ as well as
the IO. It is pointed out that on 15.04.2025, the learned ASJ directed
him to produce the mobile phone used from June 2024 to October
2024, without deletion of any data, but that he produced only a device
used since 22.03.2025 with a different IMEI number, which is alleged
to be a deliberate attempt to withhold the very phone used during the
conspiracy period, thereby frustrating investigation into
communications with cartel members.
20. The learned ASJ, while granting anticipatory bail on
14.05.2025, relied primarily on discrepancies in the IO’s oral replies,
and ignored material evidence including CDRs, statements recorded
under Section 180/183 of the BNSS, and the respondent’s continued
8
(2001) 4 SCC 638
9
(2009) 2 SCC 624
10
(1999) 9 SCC 429
11
SLP (Crl.) No. 12621/2024, order dated 19.09.2024
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 7 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
non-cooperation. This resulted in a perverse order, contrary to settled
law.
21. The prosecution also questions the genuineness of the alleged
lost-phone complaint lodged with Royal Thai Police on 30.09.2024, in
which Mayank claims to have lost his iPhone 15 Pro with Indian
number 92895-29969 and other items. It is submitted that this
complaint was filed just before 01.10.2024 seizure in Mahipalpur and
suggests that the loss report is unverified and timed to create a
defence, and part away with the incriminating digital evidence.
22. Further, the taxi driver Nitish Kumar, in his statement under
Section 180 BNSS, confirmed that he picked up Tilak PD from the
airport on both occasions and observed him carrying two suitcases
upon arrival, but on departure he carried none. The State also places
reliance on the statement of Tilak Prasad Sharma recorded under
Section 183 BNSS, in which he stated that his nephew Tilak PD had
informed him that he transported marijuana supplied by Mayank Jain
and the respondent Anchit Jain from Thailand to Delhi. The
prosecution asserts that this set of materials, taken collectively, forms
a coherent narrative establishing that the marijuana moved through a
chain starting in Thailand with the involvement of the respondent.
23. On these facts, the State contends that the impugned order was
passed ignoring vital materials namely international conspiracy,
multiple witness statements, CDR/WhatsApp logs, hotel records,
disclosure statements, and the pattern of travel between Delhi and
Phuket. It is argued that such an order, passed in disregard of section
37 NDPS and the magnitude of the offence, is a perverse order
justifying interference of this Court, even in the absence of post-bail
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 8 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
misconduct, as recognized in judgments on cancellation of bail where
the initial grant is vitiated by serious infirmities.
24. The State submits that the liberty of an accused cannot override
the societal interest in prosecuting grave NDPS offences, and that
continuance of anticipatory bail in favour of Mayank Jain would
seriously prejudice the investigation. Accordingly, the petitioner prays
that the impugned order be set aside.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
25. Per Contra , Mr. Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the respondent has been falsely implicated
based solely on inadmissible and uncorroborated disclosure statements
of co-accused persons. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
12
Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , statements made to police
officers under Section 67 NDPS Act are not admissible as evidence
unless supported by independent recovery or corroboration. No such
recovery from the respondent exists in this case.
26. It is submitted that the application for cancellation of
anticipatory bail is wholly misconceived, legally untenable and bereft
of any new or supervening circumstances arising after grant of bail
and therefore deserves dismissal under the settled law.
27. It is submitted that the respondent is a 29-year-old, highly
educated individual, and has been working in Phuket, Thailand as a
salesman at Comfort Patong Hotel, earning his livelihood legitimately.
He comes from a respectable, educated family, his father being a
commerce graduate, qualified chartered accountant and management
accountant, currently employed as Senior Vice-President with
12
(2021) 4 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 9 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
Safexpress. It is contended that he has deep roots in society and no
criminal antecedents, and that his background and conduct belie the
allegation that he is a member of an international drug cartel.
28. The respondent points out that his anticipatory bail application
was considered at length by the learned ASJ, who passed a detailed,
reasoned order on 14.05.2025 granting him anticipatory bail, after
hearing both sides and going through the entire material including
CDR, WhatsApp data, disclosure statements and witness statements.
29. The learned ASJ, while initially noting that the case against
Mayank Jain related only to 39.076 kg of marijuana and not the
cocaine/meth chain, repeatedly called upon the Investigating Officer,
by orders dated 09.05.2025 and 13.05.2025, to clarify the alleged
WhatsApp chats, provide data linking the Thai number to the
respondent, and explain how exactly the chats related to the recovery
of marijuana in the case. The order records that, even after such
clarification, there was nothing on record to definitively show that the
Thai number 66-961145467 belonged to Mayank Jain or that it had
been confirmed through Thai authorities, and that the prosecution was
proceeding essentially on assumptions about that number, Cyniq app
report, and hearsay statements.
30. It is submitted that the foundation of the prosecution case is
inadmissible disclosure statements of co-accused persons recorded
under section 67 NDPS Act and hearsay statements, which cannot
form the basis for either conviction or cancellation of bail. It is argued
that confessional statements made to NDPS officers under section 67
have been held inadmissible as substantive evidence and cannot by
themselves justify arrest or denial/cancellation of bail without
independent corroboration in the form of recovery, discovery,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 10 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
financial trails or other credible evidence. It is argued that there is no
recovery of any narcotic or psychotropic substance from him, from
any premises under his control, or at his instance, and no financial
dealings have been shown linking him to the seized contraband, and
no independent material, apart from co-accused disclosures and CDR
logs, connects him to the consignment of 39.076 kg marijuana or to
the cocaine/mephedrone network.
31. The allegation regarding guest-register entries of Tilak Sharma
and his statement under Section 183 BNSS is denied. The respondent
has never met him, never stayed at Grand Shobha Hotel, and has no
link with any delivery of contraband. The prosecution has not
produced any CCTV footage, call data, travel records, messaging
history or financial records showing the respondent’s involvement.
32. On the alleged Thai mobile number and WhatsApp
communications, the respondent submits that the entire prosecution
theory is speculative and inconsistent. The investigating agency claims
that Mayank Jain was using Thai number 66-961145467 and that more
than 600 WhatsApp calls were exchanged between this number and
co-accused Tushar Goyal, however, the very Cyniq app data relied
upon by the prosecution shows that there is no WhatsApp account
registered on that number at the relevant time, which makes it
impossible for WhatsApp calls or voice-notes to have been exchanged
through that number.
33. The respondent points out that the IO has not produced any
proof as such to show that the Thai number is in Mayank’s name or
that it was being used by him. Meanwhile, Mayank has consistently
stated that he used Indian number 9289529969 on his iPhone 15 Pro,
which he lost in Thailand on 29.09.2024, and that he lodged a police
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 11 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
complaint with the Royal Thai Police on 30.09.2024 detailing the loss
of his phone, driving licence, cash and Indian identity documents,
much before the recovery on 01.10.2024 and FIR registration in India.
34. It is thus argued that the State has itself admitted before the
learned ASJ that the Thai report on the ownership and usage of
66-961145467, verification of the Thai police complaint regarding
loss of phone, and verification of Mayank’s employment in the
hospitality industry in Phuket are all still awaited, which shows that
the prosecution is trying to cancel anticipatory bail on an incomplete
and unverified record.
35. The respondent also challenges the reliance on CDRs as a
ground to cancel bail, especially in the absence of any recovery or
financial link. It is submitted that mere CDRs/contact between
accused persons, without any recovery or other incriminating material,
cannot, by itself, justify denial of anticipatory bail, and that the
evidentiary worth of CDR is to be evaluated at trial. It is also
submitted that reasonable grounds exist to believe that Mayank Jain is
not guilty of the alleged offences and that Section 37’s threshold has
been crossed for the purpose of bail.
36. On the legal principle for cancellation of bail, the respondent
strongly submits that the parameters for granting bail and cancelling
bail are distinct and that cancellation is a harsh measure.
37. Applying these principles, the respondent asserts that the State
has not pleaded or proved any single instance of post-bail misconduct
on his part. There is no allegation, much less any complaint or report,
that he has contacted, influenced or threatened any prosecution
witness, tampered with any evidence, or obstructed investigation after
grant of anticipatory bail on 14.05.2025. On the contrary, the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 12 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
anticipatory bail order itself records conditions which he has complied
with, wherein he has deposited his passport with the IO, marks his
attendance at the concerned police station, joins investigation as and
when directed, and has not left Delhi-NCR/India without court
permission. The respondent underscores that several months have
passed since the grant of anticipatory bail, during which he has
maintained impeccable conduct.
38. The respondent further relies on the learned ASJ’s observations
that, at this stage, the data from Thailand regarding the Thai number
and verification of his lost-phone report and job records is awaited,
that there is no proved financial link with co-accused, that there is no
previous involvement, and that there is no present connectivity on
record between him and other co-accused except disputed digital
traces and inadmissible Section 67 statements. In these circumstances,
the learned ASJ held that Mayank Jain had crossed the bar of Section
37 NDPS Act for the limited purpose of anticipatory bail and admitted
him to anticipatory bail.
39. Finally, the respondent submits that despite exhaustive
extraction of digital material from various co-accused, the prosecution
has not produced a single chat, voice message, image, document,
transaction, or logistical detail recovered from any device that
implicates him. The respondent has not been arrayed as an accused in
the charge sheet, and the same underscores the absence of evidence
against him. Therefore, he submits that materials relied upon by the
State do not justify cancellation of bail, and that the prosecution’s case
against him remains speculative, uncorroborated, and unsupported by
substantive evidence.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 13 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
40. The present petition raises no new fact, no post-bail conduct,
and no allegation of misuse of liberty. It merely repeats the same
allegations on which the learned ASJ has already applied his judicial
mind. Therefore, the respondent submits that the petition is not
maintainable and deserves dismissal.
Analysis and findings
41. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the compilation of judgments filed by
the parties.
42. On a prima facie appraisal of the record, including the FIR, the
charge-sheet, replies and the material placed as part of the present
petition, what emerges is an extensive international drug trafficking
enterprise functioning through two parallel supply chains, one relating
to cocaine/mephedrone and the other relating to hydroponic
marijuana into India.
43. The factual narrative shows that following the Mahipalpur raid
of 01.10.2024, the investigation has traced a cartel/syndicate headed
by Virender Singh Baisoya @ Viru and Sandip Sansar Dhunay,
operating through shell firms and conduits across India and abroad,
involving, inter alia , large cocaine/mephedrone recoveries in Delhi
and Gujarat and the hydroponic marijuana recovery at Mahipalpur.
Within this overall conspiratorial canvas, the material placed by the
prosecution distinctly segregates two chains, attributing to the
respondent a role only in the marijuana chain , but nonetheless as part
of the same organized crime syndicate.
44. The first error that vitiates the impugned order lies in the
manner in which the learned Special Judge treated this case as if it
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 14 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
were an ordinary bail matter and not one attracting the rigors of
Section 37 NDPS Act, despite undisputed recoveries of commercial
quantity contraband. The order proceeds on the premise that since the
respondent is linked only to 39.706 kg marijuana and not to the 1,289
kg cocaine/mephedrone, Section 37 is somehow diluted, whereas, in
law, any offence under sections 20/21/29 involving commercial
quantity squarely attracts Section 37 and mandates satisfaction of the
twin conditions before grant of bail, including anticipatory bail. It is
settled law that in cases involving commercial quantity, rigors of
Section 37 NDPS Act have to be looked into, however, upon bare
perusal of the impugned order, it is made out that the learned ASJ has
casually referred to Section 37 in the concluding paragraph without
stating as to how the rigors under the said provision stand satisfied.
45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in NDPS
cases involving commercial quantity, the Court must record a positive
satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on
bail, and mere absence of direct recovery from the accused or
perceived infirmities in investigation cannot, by themselves, justify
the grant of bail. The impugned order does not record any such
satisfaction on the material against the respondent, instead, it dilutes
the statutory mandate on the strength, thereby reversing the burden
implicit in Section 37.
46. The respondent’s primary defence rests on characterizing the
material as “inadmissible disclosure” and “hearsay”, and on asserting
that in the absence of personal recovery, financial trail or completed
foreign verification, no reasonable ground exists to deny him
anticipatory bail. This broad-brush approach ignores the settled
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 15 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
distinction between evidentiary admissibility for purposes of
conviction at trial, and the prima facie evaluative standard applicable
at the stage of bail, especially under Section 37 where the Court must
consider the totality of circumstances, including confessional
statements, CDRs, travel records, hotel registers and the accused’s
own conduct to assess whether a strong nexus to the conspiracy is
shown.
47. As regards the contention that the case against the respondent is
built “solely” on Section 67 NDPS statements and hearsay disclosures
of co-accused, the record does not support such claim. The charge-
sheet reveals the chain of circumstances, including:
a. Travel and presence of the respondent in Phuket in June
2024 alongside co-accused;
b. Multiple witness/co-accused persons statements under
sections 180 and 183 BNSS;
c. Extensive digital communication from the Thai number
attributed to the respondent with a central conspirator;
d. Guest register entries and taxi-driver’s statement
consistent with the transport of marijuana consignments;
and
e. The respondent’s non-cooperation in producing the
relevant mobile device and his evasive conduct in the
pre-arrest phase.
48. On the question of hearsay, the statement of Tilak Prasad
Sharma (uncle of Tilak PD) under Section 183 BNSS, cannot be
dismissed at this stage as mere hearsay in the manner the defence
suggests. The statement records, with specificity, that his nephew,
Tilak PD, was involved in transporting marijuana from Thailand to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 16 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
Delhi supplied by, inter alia , Mayank Jain and Anchit Jain and that
Mahipalpur was the delivery node, which directly establishes the
connection with the Mahipalpur recovery and with the travel/hotel
records of Tilak PD.
49. It has been recorded that he accompanied his nephew to
Thailand, where a person handed over two trolley bags to his nephew
Tilak PD and that when he asked his nephew to whom the bags belong
to, he responded that the same belongs to Mayank, Anchit and Ritik.
50. Further narration of events also show that after receiving the
bags, both Tilak Prasad Sharma and his nephew travelled to Nepal
through Sri Lanka. Following which, upon arrival at Nepal, nephew
Tilak was caught upon checking by the police there and the other
Tilak Prasad Sharma (uncle) met another person outside the airport
who took the bags from him, and gave him a sum of 7,000/- (in Nepal
currency).
51. Though the respondent contests this as hearsay, the said
statement is judicially recorded which, at the present stage, adds a
further link in the evidentiary chain connecting the Thailand suppliers
(including the respondent) to the specific 39.706 kg marijuana
recovery. With regards to the same, this Court is of the considered
view that the said contention of terming the statement of Tilak Prasad
Sharma as hearsay cannot be accepted as he was present at the hotel
where the exchange of bags took place and his narration shows that he
was a witness to the handing over of the bags that contained the
contraband.
52. The statement recorded under Sections 180/183 BNSS notes
that the statement has been recorded in his own hand, as narrated by
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 17 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
the witness, voluntarily and without addition or deletion, further
adding to its reliability at this stage. Tilak PD’s non-availability in
India, because he is in custody in Nepal, is not a ground at this stage
to efface the probative weight of Tilak Prasad’s sworn statement when
seen with independent corroboration from hotel registers and the taxi
driver Nitish Kumar’s statement.
53. Nitish Kumar, in his statement under Sections 180/183 BNSS,
specifically narrates that he twice picked up Tilak PD from the airport
and dropped him at Grand Shobha Hotel, Mahipalpur, observing that
he arrived with two suitcases and left without any luggage, which is
consistent with a one-way movement of contraband. This narrative is
independently supported by seizure of the Grand Shobha guest
registers which reflect entries of Tilak PD for the relevant periods
(29–31.08.2024 and 29–30.09.2024), thereby corroborating the
prosecution theory that Mahipalpur was the reception point of
marijuana consignments brought from Thailand.
54. The learned ASJ , while referring to these materials, chose to
discount them largely on the footing that they were disputed, hearsay
or required further foreign verification, but did not examine their
cumulative effect in terms of establishing a prima facie chain linking
Thailand (source), carriers (Tilak PD) and Tilak Sharma, reception
point (Mahipalpur) and the domestic handlers (Tushar/Himanshu and
others).
55. This approach is legally unsustainable because, at the stage of
anticipatory bail, in light of applicability of Section 37 NDPS, the
Court is required to evaluate whether the materials, disclose grounds
for believing that the accused is involved and not to test them to the
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as if in a mini-trial.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 18 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
56. The learned ASJ’s reliance on the inadmissibility of Section 67
statements as per Tofan Singh (Supra) is also misplaced in the
context of cancellation. While Tofan Singh (Supra) restricts the use
of such statements as substantive evidence at trial, it does not preclude
the Court, at the stage of bail, from taking into account the broader
matrix comprising Section 67 statements, co-accused disclosures, and
collateral corroboration through CDRs, travel and financial records to
assess the existence of a prima facie case, particularly when those
statements are not the sole foundation but one strand in a composite
chain.
57. In this case, the disclosure of co-accused Tushar Goyal
specifically implicates Mayank Jain as a conspirator in Phuket, stating
that a meeting was held in June 2024 with Virender Baisoya, Mayank,
Anchit and Ritik to plan the marijuana-from-Thailand chain, with
Mayank and Anchit responsible for arranging marijuana in Thailand,
Virender Baisoya for moving it into India, and Tushar for receiving
and distributing it domestically. This is not an isolated statement but
gains probative force when read with the independent BNSS witness
statements of Ishant Bhatia, Gaurav Gambhir and Sagar Tuteja, who
all confirm seeing Mayank Jain in Phuket with Ritik and Tushar
during the relevant period and identify his Thai number as +66
961145467.
58. The statements of Ishant, Gaurav and Sagar under Sections
180/183 BNSS demonstrate - (a) contemporaneous presence of
Mayank with co-conspirators in Phuket; (b) social association
sufficient to infer familiarity and potential collaboration; and (c) the
Thai number used by him in that period. These are not statements of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 19 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
co-accused to police, but of independent witnesses, and their
evidentiary value, at this stage, is qualitatively different.
59. The statement of travel agent Mukesh Mehra further reinforces
this chain by confirming that he booked flights from Delhi to Phuket
for, inter alia , Mayank Jain and Ritik Bajaj and that he remained in
touch with Mayank on the same Thai number. In addition, WhatsApp
chats between Mukesh and Mayank show continuous interaction
regarding travel logistics, which is consistent with the prosecution
narrative that the Phuket visits were not leisure trips but were part of a
pattern of coordinated travel by identified cartel members.
60. Turning to the digital evidence, the CDRs and WhatsApp
extraction from co-accused Tushar Goyal’s device show in excess of
600 contacts/call logs (calls/WhatsApp interactions) between the
device and Thai number 66 961145467 saved as “MJ Phuket”, as well
as around 10 contacts/call logs with a number saved as “Anchit
Phuket”. The prosecution has also relied on a transcription of a
WhatsApp voice note dated 27.06.2024, in which Tushar, addressing
the Thai number, refers to “ Veeru bhai se baat ho gayi hai ” and
instructs that “ deliveries sambhal lena ”, which is in line with the
broader allegation of Virender Baisoya’s leadership and the
respondent’s role in handling marijuana-related deliveries.
61. The respondent’s principal attack on this digital material is
twofold. First , that there is no conclusive proof from Thai authorities
that the number 66-961145467 is registered in his name, and second,
that the Cyniq app report suggests that no WhatsApp account is active
on that number, allegedly rendering the WhatsApp call and voice-note
theory impossible. Both aspects were taken at face value by the
learned ASJ to discredit the prosecution’s case, without having regard
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 20 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
to the point that these were matters of appreciation of evidence better
left to trial and that the foreign verification was pending.
62. As to identity of the number, the prosecution has never claimed
that Thai subscriber details have already been received, on the
contrary, it has consistently stated that verification from Thai
authorities regarding ownership and usage of that number, as well as
verification of the Thai police “lost phone” complaint, is still awaited.
In such a situation of ongoing investigation, the convergence of
independent witnesses identifying the respondent with that number,
the travel agent’s confirmation, and the saving of the number in
Tushar’s phone as “MJ Phuket” cumulatively create a strong prima
facie link which the learned ASJ could not have brushed aside merely
because formal foreign authority records are yet to be procured.
63. The Cyniq app argument also does not carry decisive force at
this stage. The prosecution’s case is built on the data retrieved by
CERT-In from Tushar’s handset, which shows WhatsApp interactions
with the Thai number, including the voice note and group details, the
fact that at some subsequent time the App shows “no WhatsApp
account” on that number may at best create a matter of cross-
examination and forensic interpretation, but cannot, at the bail stage,
be treated as irrefutable proof that such communications never existed.
The learned ASJ effectively elevated this discrepancy to the status of a
conclusive exculpatory fact, thereby substituting its own factual
inferences for a proper trial process, which is impermissible in
anticipatory bail jurisdiction, especially in matters attracting rigors of
Section 37.
64. The respondent’s reliance on his alleged Thai lost-phone
complaint dated 30.09.2024, claiming loss of his iPhone 15 Pro with
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 21 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
Indian number 9289529969 on 29.09.2024, was similarly accepted by
the learned ASJ as a significant mitigating factor, despite the
prosecution having specifically pointed out that the authenticity and
provenance of this document are unverified. The timing of the
complaint, just one day before the Mahipalpur seizure on 01.10.2024,
and the respondent’s subsequent failure to produce the phone used
from June to September 2024, raise serious doubts that ought to have
weighed against, and not in favour of, the grant of anticipatory bail.
65. Importantly, the learned ASJ had, by order dated 15.04.2025,
directed the respondent to produce the mobile phone used by him for
the last one year. Instead of complying, the respondent produced only
a device used since 22.03.2025, with a different IMEI number, thereby
effectively withholding the handset allegedly used during the period of
meeting in Phuket and the subsequent conspiracy, a conduct which the
prosecution is justified in characterizing as deliberate frustration of
investigation.
66. The same pattern is mirrored in the conduct of co-accused
Anchit Jain, who produced a damaged phone allegedly broken in an
accident in Thailand, an assertion not supported by any accident report
or corresponding IMEI change in the CDRs. The investigation’s
analysis of Anchit’s CDRs shows no handset change on the date of the
alleged accident, contradicting his explanation and indicating that both
he and Mayank have avoided production of their devices covering the
conspiracy period, a factor which the learned ASJ recognized but then
inexplicably discounted in favour of the respondents.
67. A common defense has been put forth by both accused persons,
namely, Anchit Jain and Mayank Jain, regarding the unavailability of
their mobile phones during the relevant period. While accused Anchit
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 22 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
Jain has claimed that his phone got damaged in an accident, co-
accused Mayank Jain has stated that his device was lost. This
coincidence in their respective explanations raises serious doubts
regarding the veracity of their claims and the possibility of deliberate
suppression or destruction of material evidence cannot be ruled out at
this stage.
68. The respondent’s subsequent claim of full cooperation and
regular attendance after grant of anticipatory bail cannot cure the
earlier non-cooperation and deliberate non-production of material
evidence. While post-bail conduct is a significant factor in ordinary
cancellation cases, in NDPS matters the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
clarified that where the initial grant of bail is vitiated by ignoring
mandatory statutory requirements or by a perverse appreciation of
material, cancellation may be justified even in absent of subsequent
misuse of liberty.
69. Nor can the respondent draw substantive benefit from the fact
that he was not arrested when he first arrived in India in April 2025
and was permitted to leave by reason of then subsisting interim
protection. The record shows that NBWs had been issued against him
on 07.01.2025 and proclamation proceedings under Section 84 BNSS
initiated on 07.02.2025, but their execution remained unfruitful as his
residence was found locked repeatedly, indicative of deliberate
avoidance of process rather than bona fide unawareness.
70. The LOC issued on 12.02.2025, his subsequent detention at IGI
Airport on 27.04.2025 and release solely because of interim protection
granted by the learned ASJ, do not negate the fact that prior thereto he
had chosen not to respond to multiple notices and had allowed
warrants and proclamation to be issued. It is a settled law that grant of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 23 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
anticipatory bail is disapproved to accused persons who had
persistently evaded process despite bailable and non-bailable warrants
and proclamation, a principle of equal, if not greater force in NDPS
matter of the present magnitude.
71. The respondent’s attempt to portray himself as a young,
gainfully employed hotel worker in Phuket with deep social roots, no
criminal antecedents and no proven financial trail, can neither
neutralize the serious prima facie material nor dilute the statutory
rigors of Section 37. Absence of prior criminal record or of traced
financial flows, while relevant, cannot override the specific,
converging indicia of participation in an organized drug syndicate
where roles are compartmentalized and financial channels often
operated through third-party or crypto mechanisms such as USDT, as
alleged here.
72. The record expressly states that charges for transportation of
marijuana from Thailand to India were being paid to Virender Baisoya
in USDT by Mayank Jain and his associates, with Tushar receiving his
share from Virender Baisoya. The mere fact that this USDT trail
requires further forensic and international cooperation does not make
the allegation illusory, rather, it underscores that the investigation qua
the respondent is still very much live and that custodial interrogation,
may be required to unearth the truth.
73. The learned ASJ, also erred in treating pending aspects of
investigation, such as FSL results for some samples, full data retrieval
from DVRs and remaining mobile phones, and foreign verification
regarding the Thai number, the lost-phone complaint and the
respondent’s employment record, as factors favouring bail. In cases of
transnational drug trafficking involving sophisticated methods and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 24 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
multiple jurisdictions, investigation is often protracted, and the fact
that certain reports are awaited, far from weakening the case,
reinforces that the investigative agencies have not yet exhausted their
avenues, and that premature insulation of a key suspect through
anticipatory bail may seriously prejudice further investigation.
74. The learned Special Judge placed unnecessary emphasis on the
absence, as on date, of a “proved” financial link between the
respondent and co-accused and on the absence of prior involvement,
to conclude that the respondent had “crossed the bar” of Section 37,
even while acknowledging that key verifications from Thailand were
pending. This inversion of statutory burden, demanding the
prosecution to completely negate all conceivable doubts at the bail
stage in a commercial quantity NDPS case amounts to substituting the
Section 37 standard of “reasonable grounds to believe not guilty” with
a standard of “no material at all connecting the accused”, which is
contrary to binding precedent.
75. The argument by the respondent that CDRs, standing alone,
cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail overlooks the prosecution’s
use of those records in this case. Here, CDRs and WhatsApp logs are
not the sole incriminating factor, instead they are part of a coherent
matrix alongside direct witness accounts, travel records, hotel
registers, recovery at Mahipalpur, co-accused disclosures and the
respondent’s own obstructive conduct in relation to his devices and
presence in India, which together cross the prima facie threshold
required to attract the bar under Section 37.
76. Equally misconceived is the respondent’s suggestion that the
statement of IO recorded on oath by the learned ASJ, somehow
exonerates him or restricts the case against him to “only” 39.706 kg
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 25 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
marijuana. The IO’s statement merely clarifies the distribution of
responsibility between the cocaine/mephedrone and marijuana chains
and it does not whittle down the gravity of the marijuana chain, which,
being of commercial quantity and part of an international conspiracy,
independently triggers the most stringent bail standards.
77. The practice adopted by the learned ASJ, of recording the IO’s
statement on oath at the anticipatory bail stage, and then heavily
relying upon perceived discrepancies therein, resembles conduct of a
“mini-trial” which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
cautioned against. Instead of assessing whether the material as a whole
reveals reasonable grounds for believing the respondent’s non-guilt,
the learned ASJ embarked upon a meticulous fault-finding with the
prosecution’s yet-incomplete investigation, thereby exceeding the
proper remit of anticipatory bail jurisdiction.
78. The respondent’s argument that his anticipatory bail application
was earlier challenged by the State and later withdrawn is also
misconceived. The present petition assails the final anticipatory bail
order dated 14.05.2025, passed after the earlier High Court
proceedings, on substantive grounds including misapplication of
Section 37, misreading of the evidentiary matrix and it is not a
disguised appeal against interim orders, and is squarely maintainable.
79. The plea that absence of any post-bail misconduct by the
respondent should immunize him from cancellation cannot prevail in
the face of a clear statutory bar and a perverse order. While ordinarily
cancellation is predicated on supervening circumstances, in NDPS
cases involving commercial quantity and organized crime, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has recognized that where the original grant itself
ignores mandatory statutory parameters or omits consideration of vital
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 26 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
incriminating material, the High Court may justifiably intervene to set
aside such an order in the interest of the administration of criminal
justice.
80. The scale of the present seizure, 1,289 kg cocaine/mephedrone
and 39.706 kg hydroponic marijuana across multiple States, coupled
with the use of shell companies, foreign email infrastructure traced to
Pakistan and Malaysia, and the roles attributed to multiple actors
including the respondent, leaves little doubt that this is not an isolated
case but part of a deeply entrenched international narcotics network.
In such circumstances, the balance between individual liberty and
societal interest tilts decisively in favour of ensuring an unfettered and
effective investigation, consistent with the legislative intent
underlying Section 37.
81. The respondent’s assertion that he was merely a hotel employee
in Phuket and that his presence there was innocuous travel is belied by
the cumulative material indicating that Phuket served as the meeting
point where the marijuana chain was conceptualized and
operationalized by specific individuals, all now either arrested or
absconding in the same case. A person repeatedly found in the
company of such identified conspirators at the same foreign location
and time, communicating intensively through a common foreign
number and thereafter linked through multiple independent statements
and digital trails, cannot, at this stage, be treated as a neutral bystander
purely on his own self-serving description.
82. The respondent’s argument that Sections 180 and 183 BNSS
statements of Tilak Prasad Shrma and other witnesses cannot be relied
upon overlooks that such statements are recorded before the judicial
officers, carry inherent safeguards of voluntariness and authenticity,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 27 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
and are expressly designed by the legislature to facilitate collection
and preservation of testimony during investigation. To label them
“hearsay” in a generic sense and ignore their specific corroborative
value at the bail stage is contrary to both statutory design and settled
bail jurisprudence.
83. Similarly, the attempt to trivialize the Grand Shobha Hotel
entries as neutral guest records ignores their temporal and personal
alignment with the narrative given by Tilak PD’s uncle and taxi driver
Nitish, as well as with the timing of the Mahipalpur recovery. When a
carrier is twice logged at the same hotel around the suspected delivery
windows, with corroborative evidence of him arriving with, and
leaving without, substantial luggage, the inference that the premises
were used as a transit point is not only reasonable but compelling at
this stage. Viewed cumulatively, this Court is of the view that there is
sufficient material on record to hold a prima facie view that the
respondent is involved in the alleged offence as the material against
the respondent discloses:
a. Antecedent conspiracy in Phuket, with named
participants;
b. Disclosure statements of co-accused persons and
witnesses, which corroborate with other evidences;
c. His identified presence and communications in that
location and period;
d. Repeated digital contact with a principal domestic
handler and other co-accused persons;
e. A defined role in arranging marijuana in Thailand;
f. The use of carriers to transport marijuana to Mahipalpur;
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 28 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
g. Seizure of a commercial quantity marijuana consignment
at that location consistent with the conspiratorial plan;
and
h. Subsequent evasive conduct relating to notices, warrants,
proclamation and production of mobile devices.
84. These elements, taken together, negate any ground for believing
that the respondent is not guilty of the alleged offence for purposes of
Section 37, and certainly do not justify an order insulating him from
custody through anticipatory bail.
85. The impugned order, in focusing on perceived investigative
lacunae and pending foreign verifications, and in treating disputed
defence material such as the Thai lost-phone complaint and Cyniq app
report as if conclusively exculpatory, effectively reversed the statutory
presumption against grant of bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases.
By doing so without recording the statutorily mandated satisfaction on
the twin conditions under Section 37, and by failing to consider the
depth of material connecting the respondent to the marijuana chain,
the impugned order is on the face of it perverse, warranting
interference.
86. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is satisfied that the
State has demonstrated that the grant of anticipatory bail to the
respondent was in clear disregard of the rigors of Section 37 NDPS
Act, ignored material linking him to an international marijuana
trafficking chain, and rested on an impermissible mini-trial of
incomplete evidence.
87. Consequently, the petition is allowed, the impugned order dated
14.05.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the respondent in FIR No.
455/2024, is set aside.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 29 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16
88. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of along with the
pending application(s), if any.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2025/ ar/ryp
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4043/2025 Page 30 of 30
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:20.12.2025
17:05:16