Suhag vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 04.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010025362026
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026
+
SUHAG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kundan Kumar and Mr. Vasu
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking
grant of regular bail in FIR No.587/2024, dated 24.06.2024, registered at PS
Narela Industrial Area, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).
2. The trial, being SC No.821/2024, is pending before the learned
Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
3. The parties were heard at some length on the previous date of hearing,
i.e. , 29.10.2026. The matter is listed today for remaining arguments.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4. The relevant factual conspectus is that on 24.06.2024 at about 2:30
PM, acting on secret information, a raiding party of the Narcotics Cell,
Outer North District, apprehended the applicant near Sirka Chowk, G-Block,
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 1 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
J.J. Colony, Bawana, Delhi.
5. The notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him at
the spot and a personal search of the applicant was conducted in the
presence of the ACP. A black polythene bag was recovered from the right
pocket of his jeans. It contained a transparent polythene packet containing a
moist, light brown, powder-like substance. On field testing, the substance
was found to be heroin. It weighed 280 grams along with the weight of the
transparent polythene.
6. On 22.07.2024, two samples of 12 grams each were drawn before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi. One of the samples
was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Rohini, Delhi under
acknowledgment no. FSL: SFSL(DLH)/9241/CHEM/2800/24 dated
23.07.2024.
7. The chargesheet was filed on 16.12.2024 against the applicant alone,
and cognizance thereof was taken by the learned Trial Court on 19.12.2024.
The co-accused named in the chargesheet, namely Abdul Rehman @ Kalu
and Ajay, are yet to be arrested.
8. The charges were framed on 28.03.2025 under Section 21(c) read
with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
9. The applicant’s first application for regular bail, before the learned
trial Court, was dismissed on 30.12.2024. His previous bail application filed
before this Court, being BAIL APPLN. 94/2025, was dismissed by this
Court on 17.02.2025. It was observed therein that the recovery was of a
commercial quantity of heroin and that the FSL report had already been
received, which supported the case of the prosecution. Para-8 of the said
order records as under:
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 2 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
“ 8. As per the case of prosecution, recovery of commercial quantity of Heroin
was made from the present applicant. FSL report has already been received
which supports the case of prosecution. Thus, there are no grounds, at this
stage, to prima facie believe that applicant herein is not guilty of the alleged
offence. ”
10. Notably, the applicant was granted interim bail by this Court on two
occasions: (i) for one week vide order dated 25.10.2024 passed in BAIL
APPLN. 3918/2024; and (ii) for fifteen days vide order dated 17.11.2025
passed in BAIL APPLN. 4297/2025.
11. As regards the progress of the trial, it is pointed out during the course
of hearing that 05 out of 20 cited witnesses have been examined. Further, as
per the Nominal Roll, the petitioner has already spent 02 years and 03
months in custody.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FSL report does not
establish that the substance recovered is heroin. Attention is drawn to the
FSL report which reveals the substance as under:
13. It is thus submitted that the substance found is ‘6-
Monoacetylmorphine, Acetylcodeine, Morphoine, Codeine, Phenobarbital,
Alprazolam, Trimethoprim, Caffeine and Acetaminophen’. It is submitted
that the same does not, on analysis, subsume ‘Diacetylmorphine’ (which is
the chemical name for heroin) and that the very foundation of the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 3 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
prosecution case is therefore rendered doubtful.
14. The applicant further emphasizes the long period of incarceration
already suffered by the petitioner.
15. Learned APP strongly opposes the present application. It is submitted
that recovery is of a commercial quantity of heroin. It is submitted that
Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies and that the previous bail application of
the applicant was dismissed by this Court.
16. Learned APP places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sheikh
Anwar vs. State , in Crl.A. 1111/2016, decided on 17.08.2022, in particular
to paragraphs 16 to 18 thereof:
“ 16. In these circumstances, the factum that Exhibit PX, the FSL result
dated 28.12.2011 indicated that on examination of the Exhibit A sent to
the laboratory in the instant case it was found to contain paracetamol,
caffeine and monoacetyle morphine in view of the deposition dated
18.05.2016 of Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, Senior Scientific Officer of the FSL
to the effect:-
“Paracetamol and caffeine are additives used for
increasing the quantity of substance where as monoacetyl
morphine is formed during the process of acetylation of
morphine to diacetyl morphine as well as during the degradation
/ hydrolysis of diacetyl morphine.
I cannot tell whether monoacetyl morphine is covered as a
Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic substance.”,
and in view of the testimony dated 08.07.2016 of the said witness Dr.
Lingaraj Sahoo, Senior Scientific Officer of the FSL in continuation to
his statement dated 18.05.2016, which read to the effect:-
“As per FSL report Exbt. PX, the sample in this case was found
to contain Paracetamol, Caffiene and Monoacetyl Morphine. As
per literature, over a period of time, diacetyl Morphine converts
into Monoacetyl Morphine and Monoacetyl Morphine converts
into Morphin. Depending on the environmental conditions like
moisture in the environment and in the sample, the diacetyl
morphine can convert into monoacetyl morphine and morphine
by the process of hydrolysis. Diacetyl Morphine and Monoacetyl
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 4 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
Morphine are the synthesized products of Morphine.
XXXXXXXX by Sh. C.S. Tyagi, LAC for the accused.
It is correct that the chemical name of Heroin is not monoacetyle
morphine.”
which makes it apparent that over a period of time Diacetyle
Morphine converts into Monoacetyle Morphine and Monoacetyle
Morphine converts into Morphine, and that, depending on the
environmental conditions like moisture in the environment and in
the sample, the Diacetyle Morphine can convert into
Monoacetyle Morphine and Morphine by the process of
hydrolysis and that Diacetyle Morphine and Monoacetyle
Morphine are the synthesized products of Morphine, and thus the
observations in the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2016 vide
paragraph 29 thereof, to the effect:-
“29. As per FSL result Ex.PX, the samples sent for examination
to FSL was found to contain paracetamol caffeine and
monoacetyle Morphine. As per notification u/s 2 of NDPS Act
chemical name of Heroine is Diacetyle Morphine. For this
reason, court took the opinion of Dr. Lingraj Sahu, Sr. Scientific
Officer, FSL Rohini, Delhi. He stated that as per literature, over
a period of time Diacetyle Morphine converts into Monoacetyle
Morphine and Monoacetyle Morphine converts into Diacetyle
Morphine. He stated that depending upon the environmental
conditions like moisture in the environment and in the samples,
the diacetyle morphine can convert into monoacetyle morphine
by the process of hydrolysis. He further, clarified that Diacetyle
Morphine and Monoacetyle Morphine are synthesized products
of morphine. Ld. LAC did not cross examine the expert much and
therefore on the basis of literature available and statement of
expert, it becomes clear that due to passage of time physical and
chemical charges takes place in heroin and smack. The recovery
was effected on 19.08.2011.The samples were sent to FSL on
29.08.2011 but test report is dated 28.12.2011. It seems that test
was conducted after about four months and due to climatic
changes and hydrolysis the sample gave positive test for
Monoacetyle morphine by conversion from Diacetyle to
Monoacetyle Morphine. Thus there is no room for doubt that
sample recovered from accused was that of Diacetyle Morphine
which is a contraband.”,-
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 5 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
cannot be faulted.
17. In view of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HIRA SINGH
(Supra), a sample which was found to contain paracetamol and caffeine
and Monoacetyle morphine, as also observed in para 10.3 of the verdict
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HIRA SINGH (Supra), to the effect:-
“10.3. ……. Take the example of heroin. It is known as powerful
and illegal street drug and opiate derived from morphine. This
drug can easily be “cut” with a variety of different substances.
This means that drug dealer will add other drugs or non-
intoxicating substances to the drug so that they can sell more of
it at a lesser expense to themselves. Brown sugar/smack is
usually made available in powder form. The substances is only
about 20% heroin. The heroin is mixed with other substances like
chalk powder, zinc oxide, because of these, impurities in the
drug, brown sugar is cheaper but more dangerous. These are
only few examples to show and demonstrate that even mixture of
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance is more dangerous.
Therefore, what is harmful or injurious is the entire
mixture/tablets with neutral substance and narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances. Therefore, if it is accepted that it is only
the actual content by weight of offending drug which is relevant
for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small
quantity or commercial quantity, in that case, the object and
purpose of enactment of the NDPS Act would be frustrated.
There may be few punishment for “commercial quantity”.
Certainly that would not have been the intention of the
legislature.”,
it is apparent that the content of paracetamol and caffeine and
Monoacetyle morphine i.e the weight thereof has to be included into the
entire content of the substance recovered from the appellant which
weighed 1.5 Kgs.
18. As already observed hereinabove the factum that over a period of
time Diacetyle Morphine converts into Monoacetyle Morphine and
Monoacetyle Morphine converts into Morphine, and that, depending on
the environmental conditions like moisture in the environment and in
the sample, the Diacetyle Morphine can convert into Monoacetyle
Morphine and Morphine by the process of hydrolysis and that Diacetyle
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 6 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
Morphine and Monoacetyle Morphine are synthesized products of
Morphine, which Morphine is also listed at Serial No.77 of the table to
Section 2 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in which the commercial quantity is
stipulated as being 250 Gms., coupled with the factum that even qua
heroin with its chemical name of Diacetyle Morphine, the quantity
amounting to 250 Gms. is a commercial quantity with there being
chemical changes which take place in the Diacetyle Morphine or
conversion thereof into Monoacetyle Morphine and vice versa, coupled
with the factum that the prosecution version is categorical as per the
Special Report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985 dated
20.08.2011 that on checking of the transparent polythene tied with
rubber band and containing Matiyala coloured powder in it which had
been recovered from the appellant, it was found on checking with the
field testing kit to be heroin (i.e. Diacetyle Morphine), with the aspect of
challenge to recovery of the date of the offence from the appellant not
sought to be urged during the course of the arguments in the instant
appeal, the conviction of the appellant for possession of 1.5 Kgs. of
heroin, a commercial quantity, to which the provisions of Section 21(c)
of the NDPS Act, 1985 apply,- has to be sustained and is sustained, even
though vide the impugned order on sentence dated 15.09.2016, there
appears to be a typographical error sentencing the convict under
Section 20(c) of the said enactment which provision relates to
possession of cannabis and not a manufactured drug and its
preparations. ”
17. It is submitted on the said basis that over a period of time,
diacetylmorphine converts into monoacetylmorphine and
monoacetylmorphine converts into morphine and as such, the FSL report
does not dilute the case against the applicant.
ANALYSIS
18. I have given thoughtful considering to the matter.
19. Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to offences involving commercial
quantity, and is in the following terms:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)—
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 7 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under
section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences
involving commercial quantity
shall be released on bail or on his
own bond unless -
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose
the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court
is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he
is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time
being in force, on granting of bail.”
20. The legal position is well-settled that while assessing whether the
requirements of Section 37 are satisfied or not, this Court is not obliged to
come to a definitive conclusion as to the absence of guilt of the accused
persons. What the Court has to ascertain is whether there is a reasonable
possibility of the accused being eventually found not guilty. In this regard,
reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the
following judgments:
(i) In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari , (2007) 7 SCC 798,
the Supreme Court observed as under:
“11. The court while considering the application for bail
with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to
record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose
essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused
on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of
such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter
as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 8 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
a finding of not guilty.
12. Additionally, the court has to record a finding that while
on bail the accused is not likely to commit any offence and
there should also exist some materials to come to such a
conclusion.”
(ii) In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal , (2022) 18
SCC 374, the Supreme Court observed:
“15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining an
application for bail in the context of Section 37 of the Act,
the court is not required to record a finding that the
accused person is not guilty. The court is also not expected
to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to
whether the accused has committed an offence under the
NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the court is
expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited
purpose of releasing him on bail.
Thus, the focus is on the
availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged
with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act
while on bail.”
21. In the instant case, the case of the prosecution is that the applicant was
found with 280 grams of heroin. The FSL report does not, in terms, support
that case. The FSL report records the presence of “6-Monoacetylmorphine,
Acetylcodeine, Morphine, Codeine, Phenobarbital, Alprazolam,
Trimethoprim, Caffeine and Acetaminophen” in the sample. The presence of
‘diacetylmorphine’ is categorically absent from the report. Therefore, the
alleged contraband that the prosecution asserts was recovered from the
person of the applicant does not appear in the result of the examination.
22. In a similar situation, where the FSL report did not detect
diacetylmorphine, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Taslima Alias Putti
vs. The State of NCT of Delhi , in BAIL APPLN. 3173/2025, decided on
17.02.2026, observed as under:
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 9 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
“ 13. As per above, though the preliminary field testing of the alleged
contraband said the recovered substance was ‘Heroin’, however, the
latter FSL report conclusively indicated absence of ‘Diacetylmorphine’,
which is a requisite for the substance to be classified as ‘Heroin’ under
the NDPS Act. Moreover, even the FIR states “...When the SI checked
the powder like substance found in the waxy bag with the field testing
kit, it was found to be Heroin. ...”. The said position is not disputed by
the prosecution. Based thereon, there is a more than prima facie doubt
raised, more so, since it goes into the root of the matter and is
regarding the very foundation of the prosecution’s case.
That,
involving the period of incarceration, the investigation being already
over and chargesheet having been filed almost fifteen months prior, and
the evidence yet having not commenced coupled with the fact that the
trial is likely to take time, and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
also hanging in doubt, are grounds for furnishing bail to the applicant
at this stage. ”
23. Accordingly, bail was granted in Taslima Allias Putti (supra),
notwithstanding Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
24. Reference may also be made to this Court’s decision in Dharmender
v. The State , BAIL APPLN. 3576/2020, decided on 23.12.2020, where the
FSL report disclosed the presence of ‘6-monoacetylmorphine’,
‘acetylcodeine’, ‘codeine’, and ‘acetaminophen’ but not ‘diacetylmorphine’.
It was held that the FSL report raised a serious question as to the case of the
prosecution since the result of the field testing kit was not confirmed by the
said FSL report. As such, the applicant was held to have raised reasonable
grounds as regards absence of guilt, and was granted bail. The relevant
observations therein are as under:-
“ 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.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the applicant has
raised reasonable grounds to believe that he may not be guilty for the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 10 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
offence for which he is charged.
Although, the applicant is stated to be
involved in three other cases, however, it is seen that the same are of the
years 2003, 2006 and 2007 and pertain to violation of the Excise Act;
none of the cases relate to an offence punishable under the provisions of
the NDPS Act.
9. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the applicant has
met the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”
25. It is true that whether the substance recovered answers the description
of heroin or of any other narcotic drug, and in what quantity, is a matter to
be established at trial. For the purpose of the present application, a
substantial doubt arises as to whether the recovery is of a commercial
quantity of heroin, as alleged.
26. Additionally, it is pertinent to note that although the FSL report had
been received when BAIL APPLN.94/2025 was decided, that order
proceeded on the footing that the FSL report supported the prosecution. Its
contents were, however, not examined, and the discrepancy now adverted to
was not placed for consideration.
27. Independently of the above, the period of custody already undergone
by the applicant and the pace of the trial also weigh with this Court. The
applicant has been in custody since 24.06.2024. Charges were framed as far
back as 28.03.2025. Further, only five of the cited witnesses have been
examined. There is, therefore, nothing to indicate that the trial is likely to
conclude in the foreseeable future. The delay in the same is not attributable
to the applicant.
28. In this regard, it is apposite to bear in mind the Supreme Court’s
observations in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2023
SCC OnLine SC 352:
“21.… Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 11 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of
Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act
too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these
factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the
appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than
not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response
to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded
that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were
lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the
country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were
undertrials.
23. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk
of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High Court in A
Convict Prisoner v. State as “a radical transformation” whereby
the prisoner: “loses his identity. He is known by a number. He
loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships.
Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status,
possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate
culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes
hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes.”
24. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as
crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the
crime, more honour is paid to the criminal” (also see Donald
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 12 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ published in 1940).
Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused
belongs to the weakest economic strata : immediate loss of
livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as
loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the
event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and
ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact
stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.
”
29. In Man Mandal & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal , SLP (Crl.)
No.8656/2023, decided on 14.09.2023, the Supreme Court likewise granted
bail in a case under the NDPS Act, having regard to an incarceration of
almost two years and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time.
30. As regards the likelihood of the petitioner offending while on bail, it
is noticed that the applicant has no previous conviction and no other case
pending under the NDPS Act.
31. Further, on two previous occasions, interim bail was granted to the
applicant, and he surrendered on time on each occasion. His jail conduct is
also stated to be satisfactory as per the Nominal Roll. Thus, there is nothing
on record to indicate that the applicant is likely to commit any offence while
on bail.
32. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The applicant is
directed to be released on regular bail in FIR No.0587/2024, on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following
conditions:
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 13 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
(i) The applicant/accused shall not leave NCT of Delhi or travel
out of the country without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(ii) The applicant/accused shall provide his permanent address to
the trial Court, and also the address where he will be residing during
the pendency of the case;
(iii) The applicant/accused shall intimate the Investigating Officer
(IO) and file an affidavit before the Trial Court regarding any change
in his residential address;
(iv) The applicant/accused shall furnish his mobile number to the
Investigating Officer (IO)/Station House Officer (SHO) concerned,
which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The mobile
number shall be kept switched on, with location services enabled at all
times, and the same shall be shared with the IO. The mobile number
shall not be changed without prior intimation to the IO during the
pendency of the trial;
(v) The applicant/accused shall report to the IO as and when called
for by the IO;
(vi) The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly contact,
approach, or threaten any of the cited witnesses;
(vii) The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case, or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner
whatsoever;
(viii) The applicant/accused shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date of hearing;
(ix) The applicant/accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 14 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55
during the period of bail; and
(x) The applicant/accused shall appear once a month before the IO
at the concerned Police Station between 10:00 am and 11:00 am.
33. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be
entitled to move an application seeking cancellation of bail.
34. The learned trial Court is requested to expedite the trial proceedings
to the extent feasible.
35. It is clarified that the observations made herein 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 of this
Court on the merits of the case.
36. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
37. The application is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/ cl,sd
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 349/2026 Page 15 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:08:55