Judgment Intelligence
Bail Granted- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of Decision
- 5 August 2025
- Bench
- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21, 25, 29, 37; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 483, 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
Regular bail on a Rs 35,000 personal bond and one surety of like amount; she must appear when required, keep her mobile number with the IO working, commit no crime, not contact or intimidate witnesses and report any address change; application disposed of (paras 26, 28).
Source Delhi High Court, delhihighcourt.nic.in — judgment dated 05.08.2025
Key holdings
- Heroin recovered separately from co-accused cannot be collectively attributed to the applicant; her own 100 grams was intermediate (para 25).
- The specific recovery from the applicant, not the State's total for all the accused, decided the quantity question (paras 17, 25).
- With the charge-sheet filed, her custody since 26.04.2024 was no longer needed for investigation (paras 24-25).
- Three co-accused, two with intermediate quantities and one with no recovery, were already on bail (para 24).
- Arrest-grounds, search-procedure and Section 37 objections were left undecided (paras 4-10, 20-22).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
Faced with a combined total, a bail court should ask what was recovered from the applicant herself. Here the FIR invoked Section 29 (para 1), yet the Court did not count heroin seized from others against her: separately recovered heroin could not be collectively attributed to her, and her own 100 grams was intermediate (para 25). The reasons do not discuss Section 29 or the Section 37 twin conditions; custody, the filed charge-sheet, co-accused on bail and a long trial carried the decision (paras 24-26). Related reading: Vinod Yadav (no clubbing without a Section 29 charge), Tanishq Arora (separate recoveries not combined into commercial quantity) and Kanwalpreet Singh (bail judged on the accused's own recovery).
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) SCC 76
Cited for the applicant on the plea that no written grounds of arrest were given to her (para 4); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Prabir Purkayashta v. State of NCT 2024 8 SCC 254
Cited for the applicant on the plea that no written grounds of arrest were given to her (para 4); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
Cited for the applicant, who said non-compliance with Section 50 CrPC made her arrest illegal; the order records it as reiterating that such an arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution (para 5); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
View all precedents (18)
- Zakhir Hussain v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Bail Appl. No. 1418/2024
Cited for the applicant on the absence of independent witnesses at an arrest from a crowded place (para 6); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Gopal Dangi v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi Bail Appl. No. 3350/2023
Cited for the applicant on the absence of independent witnesses at an arrest from a crowded place (para 6); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Shivam v. State NCT of Delhi Bail APP. No. 3312/2023, decided on 15.07.2023
Cited for the applicant on the absence of photography or videography of the search and seizure (para 7); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Veer Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Bail APP No. 599/2024, decided on 21.10.2024
Cited for the applicant on the absence of photography or videography of the search and seizure (para 7); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Kanchman Yonjan v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Bail APP No. 2845/2023, decided on 08.07.2024
Cited for the applicant on the absence of photography or videography of the search and seizure (para 7); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Mohan munib v. State Bail APP No. 3946/2023, decided on 15.07.2023
Cited for the applicant on the absence of photography or videography of the search and seizure (para 7); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Rohan Malik v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Bail APP. No. 4303/2024, decided on 13.01.2024
Cited for the applicant on the absence of photography or videography of the search and seizure (para 7); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 953
Cited for the applicant, who said the search between sunset and sunrise on a co-accused's disclosure needed a warrant or authorisation under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act (para 8); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Gangaram Rama Gundkar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2002 CRILJ2578, Bombay High Court
Cited for the applicant on mandatory compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act after a recovery, as a safeguard against false implication (para 9); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Union of India v. Dharamendra Prasad 2023 SCC OnLine SC 850
Relied on by the State for the submission that technical lapses in supplying written grounds of arrest do not entitle an accused to bail (para 15); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Union of India v. Bal Mukund (2009) 12 SCC 161
Relied on by the State for the submission that technical lapses in supplying written grounds of arrest do not entitle an accused to bail (para 15); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122
Relied on by the State, as holding that bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied (para 20); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Union of India v. Rattan Malik @ Habul (2009) 2 SCC 624
Relied on by the State, as holding that bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied (para 20); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429
Relied on by the State, as observing that the legislative mandate must be adhered to and followed (para 21); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
- NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal Criminal Appeal Nos. 1001-1002/2022, Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No. 6128-29/2021, Supreme Court of India
Relied on by the State on the meaning of reasonable grounds in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, together with the submission that the trial was at an initial stage (para 22); the Court did not deal with it in its reasons (paras 23-25).
