Delhi High Court - Orders
Meghraj @ Deepak vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 September, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2517/2025
MEGHRAJ @ DEEPAK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State with SI Sanjeev Gupta
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 19.09.2025
1. First BailApplication under Section 439 Cr.P.C/483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner Meghraj @ Deepak for Regular bail in case FIR No.157/2023 under Section 20/29 NDPS Act registered at Police Station Crime Branch.
2. It is submitted that the Bail Application filed by the Applicant has been dismissed by the learned ASJ on 30.05.2025. The Applicant was arrested on 29.06.2025 and since then he is in Judicial Custody. The Chargesheet has already been filed. The investigations are complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the Applicant in Judicial Custody.
3. There is no videography or photography done at the spot when the alleged recovery was made. Moreover, no public witness has joined the proceedings, which is fatal to the case of the Prosecution.
4. It is submitted that as per the case of the Prosecution, the Applicant was apprehended from a crowded place near PWD office next to Gopalpur Village, Avtar Majnu Ka Tila and recovery effected therefrom. No reason 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 24/09/2025 at 21:40:44 has been given as to why no passersby were requested by the Police officials to join the investigations. It cannot be overlooked that the Government employees or the shopkeepers must have been available near Gopalpur. No Notice under Section 100(8) CrPC was given to the witnesses on their refusal to join the investigations and the search.
5. Reliance is placed on Sukhvinder Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4733, Madhuri Chauhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4735, Tinku vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Appl. No.422/2024 decided on 24.12.2024, Veer Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Appl. No.599/2024 decided on 21.10.2024, Sanjay vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Appl. No.3710/2023 decided on 22.01.2025, Gopal Dangi vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Appl. No.3350/2023 decided on 15.07.2024 and Jitendra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Appln. No.333/2025 decided on 24.02.2025.
6. The Applicant has further submitted that he has completed two years in judicial custody and till date Charges have not been framed. There is a delay in conducting the trial. The prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution; the constitutional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1) (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act, as has been observed in the case of Sukhvinder Singh (supra) and Madhuri Chauhan (supra). Further reliance has been placed on Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109, Man Mandal &Anr. vs. State of West Bengal 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1868 and Naeem Ahmed Alias Naim Ahmad vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2024 SCC OnLine SC 220.
7. There isalso a serious debatable question of fact of whether the Appellant was also found in the conscious possession of the contraband, 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 24/09/2025 at 21:40:44 which can be determined only after the trialand theTwin Test of Section 37 of the Act, need not be invoked.
8. Further reliance is placed on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918, Badsha SK vs. The State of West BengalSpl. Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9715/2023 decided on 13.09.2023, Biswajit Ghosh @ Chottu&Anr. vs. State of West Bengal [SLP (Crl.) No.13428/2024], Nitesh Adhikary @ Bapan vs. State of West Bengal [2022 SCC OnLine SC] and Bau Singh vs. State of PunjabCrl. Bail Appl. No.29923-2022 decided on 08.08.2023.
9. It is submitted that the witnesses are all Police officials and there is no likelihood of tampering with the Prosecution witnesses. He has not been involved previously in any NDPS case. He is willing to abide by any terms and conditions. Hence, a prayer is made for grant of Bail.
10. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is submitted that on the basis of secret information, the Applicant was found under suspicious circumstances carrying a greycoloured bag in his hand. After sometime, a motorcycle bearing No.HR 29 AY 3980 approached the Applicant. They had a conversation for a few minutes, after which the Applicant took out a parcel of brown colour and gave it to the motorcycle rider. Seeing this, they were apprehended.
11. The parcel was recovered from the possession of co-accused Sandeep Kumar @ Sonu the motorcyclist and the same was identified by the Applicant Meghraj @ Deepak, the supplier. After apprehension both the Applicant and the co-accused were apprised of the legal rights under Section 50 of the Act, but they both declined to get themselves searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and also refused to search the Police team and the Police 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 24/09/2025 at 21:40:44 members. The recovered parcel was checked with the help of the Field Testing Kit and was found to be Charas. On weighing, it was found to contain 1.558 Kg Charas. Moreover, Rs.25,000/- were also recovered from the personal search of co-accused Sandeep, who disclosed that he had received this amount as advance payment. The motorcycle on which co-accused Sandeep had come, was seized from the spot.
12. The Applicant as well as co-accused, were arrested. Their Disclosure Statements were recorded. Their Mobile numbers were obtained and the CDR was analyzed. Both the Applicant and co-accused were found to be in touch with the main Receiver i.e. Raj Kumar @ Navjyot, who is absconding. His Mobile No.9971706839 and 7042804123 were found to have been subscribed in the name of his step mother, Seema. He was in constant touch with co-accused persons during the day of the contraband delivery.
13. Several raids were conducted for apprehension of the other co-accused persons, but no person could be traced. On 29.11.2023, co-accused Raj Kumar @ Navjot was apprehended from Faridabad, Haryana, and he admitted his involvement in drug trafficking. He also corroborated the version of the Applicant and the co-accused.
14. The CDR and CAF of mobile number of the accused persons was analyzed which established the presence of accused Meghraj @ Deepak near MCD School, Village Gopalpur, Delhi, while co-accused Sonu was found present in Old Tibetan Camp, New Aruna Nagar Colony, Majnu Ka Tilla, New Delhi, before they met at the scene of crime. At the time of incident both were found present near Gopal Pur Village which is next to the place of incident. The CDR Call Records, therefore, confirms their presence on the scene of crime.
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 24/09/2025 at 21:40:44
15. The Bail is opposed on the ground that the Applicant played a vital role in the present case. He had received the contraband and transported it in the State Transport Bus from Himachal Pradesh to Delhi, to be delivered to co-accused Sandeep @ Sonu. The Applicant as well as the co-accused MeghRaj @ Deepak and Sandeep @ Sonu, had been working on the directions of the Applicant. There is a likelihood of Applicant of jumping the Bail and evading the trial. He may tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable in the present case. The involvement of the Applicant in the drug trafficking again, cannot be overruled. A prayer is, therefore, made of rejection of the bail.
16. Learned counsel for the Applicant has argued that the Applicant is in judicial custody since 29.06.2023. Only one formal witness i.e. the Duty Officer out of 21 Prosecution witnesses has been recorded till date. Co-accused Raj Kumar had been discharged on 13.12.2024. The Applicant has clean antecedents. He was granted Interim Bail twice and on both the occasions he surrendered on time and did not violate the terms of the Interim Bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the Applicant be granted Bail.
17. The Bail, however, is opposed on behalf of the State on the ground of recovery of commercial quantity from the Applicant. It is further submitted that the trial is proceeding in accordance with law and no ground is made out for grant of Bail.
Submissions heard and record perused.
18. Though, as per the case of the Prosecution, the Applicant was caught on the spot having delivered the packet containing 1.558 Kg charas to the co-accused, but it cannot be overlooked and ignored that he is in Judicial custody since 29.06.2023 and since then only one formal Prosecution witness 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 24/09/2025 at 21:40:44 out of 21 witnesses has been examined.
19. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) 18 SCC 374, has observed that the length of period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced, are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
20. Similarly, in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403, the Apex Court has observed that mere delay in trial in grave offences, cannot be used as a ground to grant Bail.
21. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775, the Apex Court while relying upon State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 has observed that long period of incarceration cannot itself be the ground for grant of Bail.
22. It is evident that the trial is likely to take long. No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the Applicant in judicial custody. Be as it may, in the totality of circumstances, the Applicant is granted Regular Bail, on the following terms and conditions:
a) The petitioner/accused shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.35,000/- and one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
b) The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing;
c) The petitioner/accused shall provide his mobile number/changed mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times;
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 24/09/2025 at 21:40:44
d) The petitioner/accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate or intimidate the witnesses.
e) In case the petitioner/accused changes their residential address, the same shall be intimated to learned Trial Court and to the concerned I.O.
23. The copy of this Order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent as well as to the learned Trial Court.
24. The above Bail Application is accordingly disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 va 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 24/09/2025 at 21:40:44