Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Packaging Printer Named By Co-Accused In 32-Kg Alprazolam Case, Citing No Contraband Recovery From Him

FIR No. 19/2026 was registered under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), after police recovered approximately 32 kg of Alprazolam tablets and related materials from co-accused Rajeev Sharma and Shamim.

During the investigation, co-accused allegedly stated that they had procured printed aluminium foil from the petitioner, who said he was in the packaging-material business; no contraband was recovered from him or his premises.

The petitioner’s earlier anticipatory-bail application had been dismissed by the Special Judge.

He sought anticipatory bail in the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Section 482 of the BNSS provides the procedural basis for seeking anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and the Court considered the restrictions in Section 37 of that Act when assessing the application.

The Court treated the absence of recovery from the petitioner, the nature of the material linking him to the alleged offence, his antecedents, and his participation in the investigation as relevant to whether anticipatory bail could be granted.

No judicial precedent is cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the petitioner was implicated through co-accused disclosures and that, although the State relied on call-detail records showing contact with co-accused, the Court considered that fact insufficient by itself to incriminate him.

It emphasized that no contraband had been recovered from the petitioner, at his instance, or from his premises, and found no material on record sufficient to establish his direct involvement with the total quantity seized.

The Court also took account of the petitioner’s clean antecedents, his having joined the investigation, and the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused from whom no recovery had been made.

On those facts, it concluded that Section 37’s restrictions did not prevent the grant of relief.

In the event of arrest, he was to be released on a bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including remaining at his stated address without prior court permission to leave, surrendering his passport if any, joining the investigation when called, keeping his mobile numbers operational, and refraining from criminal activity, contacting prosecution witnesses, or tampering with evidence.

The pending applications were disposed of, and the Court clarified that its observations were tentative.