Rahish Nadiar Ali Shah vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 8 July, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Rahish Nadiar Ali Shah vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 8 July, 2025

1. The present application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (Corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in the proceedings emanating from NCB Case No. VIII/63/DZU/2022, registered under Sections 8(C), 22, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19853, at P.S. NCB, DZU, R.K. Puram, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. On 18th August, 2022, based upon secret information, a parcel bearing Airway Bill No. XXXXXXXX934 was intercepted and examined at the premises of Aramex India Pvt. Ltd., located at Plot No. 211, Bamnoli, Sector 28, Dwarka, New Delhi. Upon examination, a total of 174 grams of 1 "BNSS"

"CrPC"

BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 1 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:35:13 Amphetamine (identified as Methamphetamine as per CRCL report) was recovered and seized. The parcel was consigned by one Anusaya Manohar Singh and addressed to Black Gunder, a resident of Australia. During investigation, it was ascertained from the Manager of Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. that the said parcel was initially received from Amrit Seair Express Pvt. Ltd. Further inquiry revealed that the parcel had been booked for shipment by one Sanjay Kumar Panda, Proprietor of UTC Worldwide Express. 2.2. On 19th August, 2022, officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau4 visited the premises of UTC Worldwide Express Pvt. Ltd. and interrogated Sanjay Kumar Panda regarding the origin of the parcel detained on 18th August, 2022. Upon inquiry, he disclosed that the parcel had been submitted for booking by one Nursheid Mansuri @ Vishal, a co-accused, who was, at that time, also present at UTC's office.

2.3. During the inquiry conducted by NCB officials, it was revealed that the said consignment had been arranged and dispatched by Nursheid, who is allegedly actively engaged in the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, both within India and internationally. Thereafter, a notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act was duly served upon him. In response, he furnished a voluntary statement admitting his involvement in the illegal trafficking of 174 grams of Amphetamine (identified as Methamphetamine as per CRCL report). He further disclosed that he had established contact with the present applicant, namely Rahish Nadiar Ali Shah, through his sister, Sahira Khatoon, who is also allegedly involved in drug trafficking activities. Further, he admitted that on 17th August, 2022, he 3 "NDPS Act"

"NCB"

BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 2 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

2.4. During inquiry, Nursheid provided screenshots of his WhatsApp communications with the Applicant, as well as proof of financial transaction(s) made by the Applicant to co-accused Sahira Khatoon's bank account. Nursheid also acknowledged that he was fully aware of the contents of the parcels and that he was to receive INR 5,000/- as remuneration from the Applicant. Additionally, he stated that on 19th August, 2022, acting on the Applicant's directions, he visited the courier office to inquire about the status of the two parcels. 2.5. On 20th August, 2022, pursuant to the disclosure made by Nursheid, a search was conducted at Amrit Seair Express Pvt. Ltd., leading to the recovery of a second parcel bearing Airway Bill No. XXXXXXXX696, from which 283 grams of Amphetamine (identified as Methamphetamine as per CRCL report) was recovered. Subsequently, on 30 th August, 2022, the Applicant and co-accused Sahira Khatoon were apprehended and served with notices under Section 67 of NDPS Act. Their voluntary statements were recorded, wherein both admitted their involvement in the trafficking activity, leading to their arrest. The Applicant has been in custody since 31st August, 2022.

3. Counsel for the Applicant makes the following submissions for seeking regular bail:

3.1. The Applicant was arrested on 31st August, 2022, and has already undergone a custody period of approximately two years and ten months. It is pertinent to note that no recovery was effected from the personal possession of the Applicant. The prosecution's case primarily hinges on the disclosure BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 3 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:35:13 statement of co-accused Nursheid Mansuri, along with certain financial transactions and WhatsApp communications between the Applicant and the co-accused. However, there is no independent or corroborative evidence linking the Applicant directly to the contraband in question. In the absence of such material evidence, the Applicant's continued incarceration is entirely unjustified.

3.2. The co-accused Nursheid Mansuri and Sahira Khatoon, who stand on an equal footing with the Applicant, have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 17th February, 2025 and 25th February, 2025, respectively, in BAIL APPLN. 4714/2024 and BAIL APPLN. 4341/2024. In view of the principle of parity, the Applicant is also entitled to the benefit of bail.

3.3. Moreover, although the seizures were effected on 18th August, 2022 and 20th August, 2022, the prosecution filed an application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act only on 10th October, 2022, after an unexplained and inordinate delay of 50 days, which casts serious doubt over the procedural sanctity of the seizure and compliance with mandatory provisions. 3.4. There exists certain discrepancy in the identification of the contraband. The field-testing kit identified the seized substance as Amphetamine, whereas the CRCL report confirmed it as Methamphetamine, thereby raising questions regarding the consistency and reliability of the prosecution's case.

3.5. The Applicant has clean antecedents and deep roots in society. He is the sole breadwinner of his family, and his continued detention would cause undue hardship. Furthermore, the trial is nowhere near conclusion and hence, the continued incarceration of the Applicant would serve no BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 4 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC, strongly opposes the bail application and advances the following submissions:

4.1. The offence alleged against the Applicant is of a grave and serious nature, posing a significant threat to society at large. A total of 457 grams of Amphetamine (identified as Methamphetamine in CRCL report) has been recovered, which falls within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. In view of the quantity recovered, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand attracted.

4.2. The Prosecution's case is not merely based on the disclosure statements of the co-accused Nursheid Mansuri. On the contrary, there is substantial and independent evidence directly linking the Applicant to the offence. The investigation has revealed that the Applicant had deposited money in the bank account of co-accused Sahira Khatoon on 13th August, 2022, prior to the booking of the seized parcels. Moreover, the co-accused Nursheid Mansuri has categorically stated that both parcels containing the contraband were personally handed over to him by the Applicant for shipment. This disclosure has been further corroborated through WhatsApp communications exchanged between him and the Applicant, which clearly demonstrate their coordination in relation to the trafficking of the narcotic substances.

4.3. The Applicant is a Nepali citizen and has been identified as part of a drug syndicate operating across international borders. His foreign nationality, coupled with his alleged role in this network, raises a strong and credible apprehension of absconding or committing similar offences activities if released on bail.

BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 5 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:35:13 4.4. The Applicant has been apprehended pursuant to specific disclosures and financial evidence, and his voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act reflects his conscious involvement in the offence. In light of the foregoing, the prosecution submits that the present case does not warrant the grant of bail at this stage.

5. The Court has carefully considered the aforenoted contentions and perused the material on record. The recovery of 457 grams of Amphetamine (identified as Methamphetamine in CRCL report) was effected from the parcels intercepted at the office of Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. and Amrit Seair Express Pvt. Ltd. No recovery was effected from the physical possession of the Applicant at the time of arrest, nor during any contemporaneous search of his residences during the raids. This raises a foundational question:

whether the material collected during investigation suffices to establish that the Applicant was in conscious possession of the contraband, or had such dominion and knowledge over it, so as to attract the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The concept of "conscious possession" under the NDPS Act has been elaborated by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh,5 as follows :

"Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness. This concept has evolved primarily through judicial interpretation since the term "conscious possession" is not explicitly defined in the NDPS Act. This Court through various of its decisions has repeatedly underscored that possession under the NDPS Act should not only be physical but also conscious. Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature."

2025 SCC OnLine SC 122.

BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 6 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:35:13 Likewise, in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan,6 the Supreme Court has emphasized that mere physical proximity or notional linkage is insufficient to constitute conscious possession unless the prosecution can show that the accused had knowledge and dominion over the narcotic substance.

6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the Prosecution has not been able to prima facie establish either physical possession or the requisite mental element. As regards the element of awareness and control over the contraband, the Prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative evidence to demonstrate that the Applicant had knowledge of the contraband. The Prosecution has not shown that the Applicant played any direct role in the ordering, packaging, dispatch, or receipt of the recovered substance. The Prosecution seeks to connect the Applicant through (i) disclosure statement of the Nursheid; (ii) transaction made by the Applicant in the bank account of Sahira Khatoon; and (iii) alleged WhatsApp communications. However, prima facie these strands of evidence, even taken collectively, fall short of the threshold necessary to establish conscious possession. Although the Court is conscious of the fact that this material may have probative value and implicate the Applicants for the offences, however, such evidence, requires to be tested during trial. Thus, at this stage, the threshold to demonstrate knowledge, dominion, or a coordinating role of the Applicant in relation to the recovered contraband remains unmet.

7. The Court also notes that both co-accused, Nursheid Mansuri and Sahira Khatoon, have already secured regular bail by this Court vide orders 6 (2015) 6 SCC 22.

BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 7 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:35:13 dated 17th February, 2025 and 25th February, 2025, respectively, in BAIL APPLN. 4714/2024 and BAIL APPLN. 4341/2024. In the absence of any distinguishing circumstance, the Applicant is also entitled to the benefit of bail on the principle of parity.

8. It is well established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.7 As reflected in the Nominal Roll, as on 24th April, 2025, the Applicant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 years, 6 months and 23 days. The investigation in the matter stands concluded, the chargesheet has been filed and charges have also been framed. Given the stage of proceedings and the fact that no further custodial interrogation is required, continued detention of the Applicant would serve no meaningful purpose.

9. The Nominal Roll also indicates Applicant's involvement in case FIR No. VIII/34/DZU/22, also registered under Sections 22 and 23 of the NDPS Act, at P.S. NCB, DZU, R.K. Puram, Delhi, however, pendency of another case, by itself, cannot operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh8 has observed that while antecedents and involvement in other criminal cases are relevant considerations, they cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for the denial of bail.

10. Additionally, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the apprehension regarding the Applicant's foreign nationality, being a citizen 7 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 8 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:35:13 of Nepal, and the alleged risk of absconding or reoffending, is not, by itself, sufficient to deny the relief of bail. Such risks can be effectively mitigated by imposing stringent conditions.

11. The Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of INR 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions:

a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and when directed by the concerned IO;

b. The Applicant 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; c. The Applicant shall, under no circumstance, leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court;

d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed;

e. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;

f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times. g. The Applicant shall report to the concerned P.S. on first, second and fourth Friday of every month.

12. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by 8 AIR Online 2020 SC 96 BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 9 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

13. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

14. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 8, 2025 nk BAIL APPLN. 1056/2025 Page 10 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:35:13

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders