Ajeet Partap Singh vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 March, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Ajeet Partap Singh vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 March, 2026

1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 127/2025, registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereafter 'NDPS Act'] and Sections 7/20 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 12.05.2025, acting upon secret information regarding illegal storage Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 44/2026 Page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:13.03.2026 17:55:08 and supply of banned narcotic drugs and trade of prohibited imported cigarettes being conducted under the garb of a courier business by one Sanjay, the the Anti-Narcotics Task Force had conducted a raid at the premises in question i.e. Ground floor of House No. 8/128, Village West Mehram Nagar, New Delhi. The landlord Deepak Kumar had informed the raiding team that he had rented the ground floor to Sanjay and Joginder about 40-45 days ago for carrying out courier business. Co-accused Sanjay Kumar was apprehended from the said premises, and upon search of a godown, a substantial quantity of prohibited cigarettes and restricted medicines was recovered, including 66.6 grams of Alprazolam and 164.9 grams of Zolpidem. As he failed to produce any valid licence or supporting documents, the present FIR was registered and he was arrested. During the course of investigation, the co-accused Sanjay allegedly revealed that he and his partner Joginder had many contacts in the medical field. During further investigation, the manufacturer of the recovered medicines was identified as M/s Digital Vision, which informed the investigating agency that the concerned batches had been sold to two firms in Uttar Pradesh, namely Chandra Pharma, situated at Balrampur and Hanumant Pharma, situated at Gonda. The proprietors of both these firms i.e. Manu Agarwal of Hanumant Pharma, and present applicant Ajeet Pratap Singh of Chandra Pharma. The applicant Ajeet allegedly disclosed that he had been induced by Manu Agarwal to engage in wholesale dealings of NRX medicines without bills for higher profits, and both of them also Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 44/2026 Page 2 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:13.03.2026 17:55:08 disclosed that they used to procure such medicines in bulk and supply them without documentation to persons in Delhi, knowing that they would be exported abroad through courier channels. Further investigation revealed that since March 2024, the applicant had allegedly been dispatching NRX medicines without maintaining records. The charge-sheet has since been filed, the case property sent to FSL, and the forensic report is awaited.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant was not named in the FIR registered on 13.05.2025 and was implicated only during further investigation on the basis of enquiry regarding certain medicine batches. It is contended that his inability to produce stock registers or sale-purchase bills cannot, by itself, establish his role in the criminal conspiracy. The applicant has been charged under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and it is argued that the rigours of Section 37 are not attracted in the present case since there is no recovery from him. It is further submitted that reliance on statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is legally untenable in view of settled law. The learned counsel submits that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed; therefore, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, and thus, continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. Accordingly, grant of regular bail is prayed for.

4. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the present bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious and the material collected so far disclose his active Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 44/2026 Page 3 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:13.03.2026 17:55:08 involvement in the illegal procurement and supply of restricted/NRX medicines in violation of the NDPS Act. It is contended that though the applicant was not named in the FIR initially, his role surfaced during investigation on the basis of manufacturing details, stock verification, and disclosures made by co-accused persons, which revealed that he was a key supplier of the psychotropic substances without maintaining statutory records. It is further submitted that the applicant failed to produce GST bills, stock registers, or sale- purchase records for the concerned batches, thereby indicating deliberate concealment. The learned APP also argues that the offence involves organized distribution of psychotropic substances through courier channels, which has wider societal ramifications. It is also submitted that the FSL report is awaited and the charge is yet to be framed; therefore, releasing the applicant at this stage may prejudice the prosecution case. In view of the gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation, it is prayed that the bail application be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant as well as the State, and has perused the material on record.

6. In the present case, this Court notes that secret information was received on 12.05.2025 that co-accused Sanjay was illegally storing and supplying restricted psychotropic substances such as Alprazolam and Zolpidem, along with banned imported cigarettes, under the cover of a courier business. Acting upon the said information, a raid was conducted after compliance with due procedure, including Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 44/2026 Page 4 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:13.03.2026 17:55:08 intimation to the Drugs Inspector. During the search of the premises at West Mehram Nagar, a quantity of prohibited cigarettes and medicines/psychotropic substances, i.e. 66.6 grams of Alprazolam and 164.9 grams of Zolpidem (i.e. intermediate quantity), was recovered from the possession of co-accused Sanjay. It is alleged that he could not produce any licence, bills, or statutory documents for possession of the said medicines.

7. During investigation, the batch numbers of the recovered medicines were traced to the manufacturer, M/s Digital Vision. As per the reply of the manufacturer, the concerned batches had been sold to two firms in Uttar Pradesh, i.e. Chandra Pharma, Balrampur and Hanumant Pharma, Gonda. The present applicant, Ajeet Pratap Singh, is stated to be the proprietor of Chandra Pharma. On this basis, the investigating agency conducted inspection at the premises of the said firm and alleged that the applicant had been procuring and supplying restricted medicines without maintaining proper documentation, and it was found that no GST bills, stock registers, or sale-purchase records pertaining to the restricted/NRX medicines, specifically the Zoltrate-10 tablets (zolpidem), were produced by the applicant herein.

8. However, it is also material to note that the drug licence of the firm of the applicant was verified during the course of investigation. The applicant is stated to be running a licensed pharmaceutical business and the prosecution case, at this stage, essentially rests upon the allegation that certain medicines were supplied without Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 44/2026 Page 5 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:13.03.2026 17:55:08 maintaining proper bills or stock entries. This Court also notes that during investigation, notice was served upon the courier company 'On Dot Courier', which informed the investigating agency that parcels - booked from Digital Vision company for Chandra Pharma (of applicant) and Hanumant Pharma - had been delivered in Delhi to one Surjeet. Thus, as per the material presently placed on record, the parcels in Delhi were received by the co-accused Surjeet, and not by the present applicant. It is further relevant to note that the recovery of intermediate quantity of psychotropic substances in the present case has been effected from the possession of co-accused Sanjay, and not from the present applicant.

9. Another circumstance which merits consideration is that the co-accused Manu Agarwal, who is the proprietor of Hanumant Pharma and against whom similar allegations have been levelled in the present case, has already been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2025. Furthermore, the applicant has been in judicial custody for more than eight months. The investigation qua the present applicant stands completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed.

10. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the applicant shall be released on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 44/2026 Page 6 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:13.03.2026 17:55:08 Court/Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge concerned, on the following terms and conditions:

i) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court and if the applicant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the concerned trial court.

ii) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Court and IO/SHO concerned.

iii) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing unless exempted;

iv) The applicant shall not communicate with, or come into contact with the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case.

11. The bail application is accordingly disposed of.

12. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 11, 2026 T.S. Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 44/2026 Page 7 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:13.03.2026 17:55:08

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court