Amit Bhatnagar vs Ncb on 27 August, 2025

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Amit Bhatnagar vs Ncb on 27 August, 2025

1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in the proceedings arising from FIR No. VIII/38/DZU/2023, registered under Sections 8(c), 20, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19853 at P.S. NCB DZU, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

Factual Matrix

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

2.1. On 4th August, 2023, acting on specific intelligence, officials of the 1 "BNSS"

"CrPC" 3

"NDPS Act"

BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 1 of 11

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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37 Narcotics Control Bureau4 intercepted a parcel bearing AWB No. 9752309340 at DHL Express Pvt. Ltd., 71/3, Rama Road, near Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. In the presence of an independent witness, the parcel was examined and found to contain 1.064 kilograms of Charas/Hashish, concealed inside cricket bats. The recovered contraband constitutes a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The consigner of the parcel was identified as Amit Bhatnagar (the Applicant), while the consignee was alleged to be a foreign national, Patrick Paterson, purportedly based in Denmark.

2.2. On the same day, the Applicant was apprehended and issued a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Between 4th-5th August, 2023, he tendered a voluntary statement admitting that he had booked the parcel in question on 1st August, 2023, using his own identification documents, and that the parcel contained Charas/Hashish destined for Denmark. Based on a complaint filed by the NCB under Sections 8(c), 20(c), 23(c), 25, 29A and 29 of the NDPS Act, read with Section 200 of CrPC, the subject FIR was registered, and the Applicant was formally arrested on 5th August, 2023. In his disclosure statement, the Applicant also named Ravinder Kumar (co- accused) as an accomplice in the drug trafficking operations. 2.3. Subsequently, on 8th August, 2023, a search was conducted at the Applicant's rented premises in the presence of a witness. During the search, a further recovery of 1.479 kilograms of Charas/Hashish was effected, which also falls within the category of 'commercial' quantity. 2.4. Thereafter, the co-accused Ravinder Kumar was apprehended and served a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. In his statement, 4 "NCB"

BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 2 of 11

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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37 Ravinder Kumar admitted his involvement in the drug trafficking operations with the Applicant. He disclosed that upon learning on 5th August, 2023 that the parcel had been seized by the NCB and the Applicant was arrested, he deleted WhatsApp chats and other incriminating data from his mobile phone, switched it off, and absconded to his native place in Himachal Pradesh. Forensic analysis of his phone records revealed that his mobile remained switched off between 9th August, 2023 and 14th November, 2023, corroborating his disclosure.

2.5. The co-accused further stated that he had provided a scooter bearing registration number 'DL10SU2558' to the Applicant for use in the operations. Analysis of the Applicant's mobile data revealed multiple photographs of him with the said scooter. Ravinder Kumar also disclosed that he first met the Applicant in 2017, while both were lodged in Tihar Jail in connection with other criminal cases. After their release, it was the Applicant who proposed the idea of exporting Charas abroad. 2.6. During custodial interrogation on various dates, Ravinder Kumar was confronted with a voice recording retrieved from the Applicant's mobile phone. After listening to the recorded conversations between the two accused, Ravinder Kumar allegedly admitted his role in the parcel being sent to Denmark and his involvement in the drugs business with the present Applicant. Further, analysis of the CDR of both the Applicant and the co- accused revealed that they were in regular contact with each other, thereby corroborating the prosecution's case regarding their close association and conspiracy.

2.7. The chargesheet stands filed and the trial is at the stage of framing of charges.

BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 3 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

3. Counsel for the Applicant urges the following grounds seeking grant of regular bail:

3.1. The Applicant has been falsely implicated. He has been in continuous custody for a period of nearly two years, yet, the trial has not progressed beyond the stage of framing of charges, and not a single prosecution witness has been examined till date. The prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in trial is a violation of the Applicant's fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This Court in Bantu v. State5 has emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the rights of an accused.

3.2. The Applicant's arrest itself is illegal and unconstitutional, inasmuch as he was never informed of the grounds of his arrest at the time of being taken into custody. This is in direct violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution as well as Section 50 of CrPC. The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India6 and more recently in Prabir Purkayastha v. State7 has categorically held that such violation vitiates the arrest itself. 3.3. There were several procedural lapses committed by the prosecution under the NDPS Act. Firstly, there exists a serious discrepancy under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, inasmuch as the weight of the seized contraband reflected in the inventory does not tally with the photographs annexed to the chargesheet. Secondly, the seizure of the alleged narcotic substance was neither video-graphed nor photographed, which runs contrary to the safeguards envisaged in law and reiterated in Bantu (supra). Thirdly, 5 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4671.

(2024) 7 SCC 576.

BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 4 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

3.4. Although the prosecution has cited 12 witnesses, not a single witness has been examined till date. This reflects that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. In Mohd. Muslim v. State8, the Supreme Court has held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, especially when delay is attributable to the prosecution, gravely impinges upon the fundamental rights of speedy trial of an accused, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. 3.5. Although this Court had earlier rejected the co-accused Ravinder Kumar's bail application vide order dated 5th March, 2025 [in BAIL APPLN. 3476/2024], the Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No. 7177/2025, overturned that order and enlarged him on bail. On the principles of parity, the present Applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. Contentions of NCB

4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC, strongly opposes the present bail application and submits as follows:

4.1. The present case pertains to trafficking of commercial quantity of narcotics involving a deliberate and clandestine modus operandi. The recovery of the commercial quantity of the contraband prima facie establishes the Applicant's conscious possession and active participation in the illicit operations.

4.2. The Applicant is not a first-time offender. He was previously implicated in a case involving trafficking of commercial quantity of the same contraband, wherein he was apprehended by the Delhi Police in 2015, 7 (2024) 8 SCC 254.

(2023) 18 SCC 166.

BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 5 of 11

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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37 and he was admitted to Tihar Jail between 18th September, 2015 to 25th November, 2019, whereafter he was released on bail. This fact further reflects that the Applicant has a propensity to commit similar crimes if released on bail.

4.3. In the above facts, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely apply. Since the recovery pertains to a commercial quantity, the Applicant cannot be released unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence and that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. In the present case, these twin conditions are clearly not satisfied. Judicial precedents relied upon by the Applicant are distinguishable on facts and cannot dilute the statutory mandate under Section 37 in cases of this nature.

4.4. The statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act also operate against the Applicant. The concealment of narcotics in cricket bats, the consignment having the Applicant's identification and placing him as a consignor, and the subsequent recovery from his rented premises reinforce the presumption of culpable mental state and possession. The burden to rebut these presumptions lies on the Applicant, and he has failed to discharge this burden.

Analysis

5. While considering an application for bail, the Court is required to undertake a careful balancing exercise between the fundamental right to personal liberty and the interests of justice in securing a fair trial. The governing factors are well recognised: whether there exists a prima facie case or reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is implicated in the offence; the gravity of the allegations and the seriousness of the accusation;

BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 6 of 11

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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37 the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the likelihood of the accused committing further offences if enlarged on bail; the possibility of the accused absconding or evading the process of law; and, importantly, the apprehension that witnesses may be influenced or the course of justice obstructed if bail is granted.

6. The quantity of the narcotic substance recovered is of a 'commercial' quantity. As a result, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand attracted. This provision mandates two stringent conditions to be satisfied before bail can be granted: first, the Court must be satisfied, upon hearing the Public Prosecutor, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The expression "reasonable grounds" has also been judicially explained to mean something more than mere prima facie suspicion; it must be founded on substantial and credible material. The Supreme Court has also held that denial of bail is the rule, and its grant is an exception under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.9 Thus, in cases involving commercial quantity, the presumption tilts heavily against the grant of bail, and the burden rests on the accused to demonstrate circumstances that meet this elevated statutory threshold.

7. The material placed on record cannot be lightly brushed aside. The recovery of 1.064 kilograms of Charas/Hashish ingeniously concealed within cricket bats, coupled with the undisputed fact that the consignment bore the Applicant's identification as the consignor, prima facie establishes a nexus between the Applicant and the contraband seized. This link is further reinforced by the subsequent search of the Applicant's rented BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 7 of 11 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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37 premises, which yielded an additional recovery of 1.479 kilograms of the same narcotic substance. These circumstances, taken together, point not to mere suspicion but to substantive material connecting the Applicant with the offence. Add to this the State's submission that the Applicant has previously been implicated in a case of a similar nature. Such antecedents, even if not culminating in conviction, cannot be ignored at the stage of bail, for they bear directly on the satisfaction of the second limb of Section 37 of the Act, which requires the court to be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

8. The contention of the Applicant that his arrest stands vitiated on account of not being informed of the grounds of arrest, with reliance placed on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha, is misconceived. However, the material on record does not support this contention. The arrest memo dated 5th August, 2023, explicitly records that consequent upon the recovery of 1.064 kilograms of Charas/Hashish on 4th August, 2023, and on the basis of the Applicant's voluntary statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the competent authority had reason to believe that offences under Sections 8(c), 20, 23 and 29 of the Act had been committed. The memo further reflects that the grounds of arrest were explained to the Applicant prior to effecting the arrest, and it bears his signature in acknowledgment thereof. The record, therefore, negates the assertion of non-communication, and the plea sought to be advanced is without merit.

9. With respect to the Applicant's contention regarding alleged discrepancies in the inventory prepared under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, it must be emphasised that, at this stage, the onus lies on the Applicant to 9 See: State of M.P. v. Kajda, (2001) 7 SCC 673.

BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 8 of 11

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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37 demonstrate how such irregularities have caused substantive prejudice to his defence or rendered the seizure itself doubtful. No such prejudice has been shown. The record indicates that the inventory was prepared under judicial supervision, and representative samples were duly drawn and sent for forensic examination, which confirmed the seized substance to be Charas/Hashish. In these circumstances, the argument premised on minor procedural lapses cannot, by itself dilute the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or to justify bail in respect of a recovery involving commercial quantity of a narcotic substance.

10. The Applicant has further contended that the Prosecution failed to associate any independent public witnesses during the seizure process and did not produce any videography or photography, thereby compromising the integrity of the recovery. Indeed, that courts have emphasised the desirability of associating public witnesses in narcotics recoveries, particularly when the search takes place in public view. However, the absence of such witnesses or of videography, while a factor to be weighed at the stage of trial, does not by itself render the seizure illegal. Where the recovery is otherwise supported by contemporaneous documentation, forensic confirmation, and the testimony of official witnesses, such omissions do not, at the bail stage, constitute sufficient ground to dilute the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or to vitiate the proceedings.

11. The plea of parity with co-accused Ravinder Kumar is equally misconceived. The Supreme Court, while granting bail to the co-accused noted as follows:

"5. Learned counsel for the Respondent could not dispute that nothing incriminating could be recovered from the appellant and that the voice recording has thus far not been sent to FSL for comparison BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 9 of 11 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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37 with the voice sample of the appellant."

Thus, it is apparent that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession or premises of the co-accused. It is further noted that the co- accused was neither named as the consignor nor the consignee of the intercepted parcel. The case against him rests solely upon the disclosure statement of the present Applicant, which by itself has limited evidentiary value at the stage of bail. In contrast, the present Applicant stands on a materially different footing; he is directly named as the consignor of the intercepted parcel, and an additional recovery of commercial quantity was effected from his rented premises. Accordingly, the benefit of the principle of parity cannot be extended in the present case.

12. It is noted that the Applicant has been in custody for nearly two years, which, the Applicant contends, is violating his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The principle that undue delay in trial may justify release has been recognised in Mohd. Muslim, where the Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration, without commensurate progress in trial, infringes the fundamental right to personal liberty. At the same time, it must be underscored that in cases under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantities, the legislature has consciously imposed the stringent mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, requiring satisfaction of the twin conditions before bail can be granted. The rigour of statute cannot be diluted merely on the ground of delay, unless the delay has been caused for reasons attributable to the State, and the period of incarceration is unconscionably long to constitute miscarriage of justice. The Applicant may, however, be entitled to revisit this ground if the trial remains stagnant for an unduly extended period.

BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 10 of 11

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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37

13. In light of the foregoing, and keeping in mind the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage. The application is accordingly dismissed.

14. 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.

SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 27, 2025 as BAIL APPLN. 1804/2025 Page 11 of 11 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 02/09/2025 at 21:34:37

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders