$~3 & 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2875/2023 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 1701/2025 HUSSAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nipun katyal with Mr. Manan Sharma, Advs. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. + BAIL APPLN. 2651/2024 ASIM KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U A Khan with Mr. Tushar Upadhyaya, Mrs. Rizwana Khana and Mrs. Abda Niyazi, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 07.07.2026 1. The applicants have filed these applications for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.607/2021 registered for offence under Sections 21/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act]. 2. There are three accused persons. Out of three, one has already been 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 09/07/2026 at 10:33:42 enlarged on regular bail in terms of order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Special Court. The Court while granting bail to the said accused had prima facie considered the violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, however, in the instant applications confined their submissions to the extent of long incarceration of the present two applicants. It is contended that the applicant – Hussain has already suffered more than four years six months incarceration, whereas, applicant - Asim Khan has suffered almost five years’ incarceration. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants have brought the attention of the Court to various decisions passed by the Supreme Court where without going into the seriousness of the allegations, the Courts have enlarged the accused on regular bail on the basis of long incarceration. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants have placed all those judgments on record. 5. This Court during the pendency of the applications vide order dated 20.01.2025 was not impressed by three principal arguments out of four made by the applicants on that date. The Court, however, bearing in mind the principles laid down in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha1, was of the opinion that the continuous long incarceration may tilt in favour of the applicant. The matter was, however, adjourned from time to time and the report from the concerned Court regarding progress of the trial was also called for. The applicant in the interregnum has also approached the Supreme Court and the Court vide order2 dated 29.06.2026 directed for 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 2 SLP (Crl.) 11518/2026 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 09/07/2026 at 10:33:42 disposal of the present bail application. 6. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the order dated 28.01.2026 passed in Chintan Rajubhai v. State of Maharashtra3. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph nos.5 to 10 are extracted as under: “5. We do not undermine the seriousness of the alleged crime. We are mindful of the fact that the prosecution is for the offence punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985. At the same time, we should not overlook the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past 3 years and 6 months and prosecution intends to examine as many as 159 witnesses. Examination of 159 witnesses or even 50% of the same is going to take a pretty long time. At times, we wonder why prosecution wants to examine so many witnesses and thereby prolong the trial and delay the same. We have observed in number of orders that the prosecution should examine important witnesses and try to establish its case. There is no point in multiplying the witnesses on one and the same issue. 6. Be that as it may, since the Special Public Prosecutor could be said to the In-charge of the trial, we have to leave it to his better discretion. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has manifold contentions to raise in so far as the merits of the case is concerned. However, we do not want to go into the merits of these contentions at this point of time. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice that there are cases almost 10 years old pending in the Trial Court as on date. 9. In the overall view of the matter, we have been persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to terms and conditions that the Trial Court may deem fit to impose. However, if the prosecution wants a particular condition to be imposed to safeguard its interest, it shall be open for the Public Prosecutor, In-charge of the trial to request the Trial Court to impose such condition.” 7. In another decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi4, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 18.03.2026, granted bail to the accused from whose rented godown 351.6 kg of poppy straw was recovered. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the accused had 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 924 4 SLP (C rl.) 21306/2025; Dated 18.03.2026 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 09/07/2026 at 10:33:42 remained in incarceration for more than three years, had no prior criminal antecedents, and that only 11 out of 26 prosecution witnesses had been examined. In the present case also, it is found that applicants have undergone incarceration for more than 4 years and there is no criminal case pending against the applicants. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) are extracted as under: “It is not in dispute that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than three years and there are no prior criminal antecedents in which he was involved. We have been informed that only eleven of twenty six witnesses have been examined.” 8. In the case of Suman S.K @ Samirul Islam v. The State of West Bengal5, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 01.03.2024, notwithstanding the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS, granted bail to the accused. While doing so, the Supreme Court took into consideration the prolonged incarceration of the accused and the fact that the charges had only recently been framed, fifteen witnesses were yet to be examined and, therefore, the trial was likely to take considerable time, thereby recognising the accused's right to a speedy trial. 9. In the instant case, it is noticed that only ten out of twenty-nine prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is, thus, evident that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. At this stage, this Court does not deem it necessary to burden the present order by referring to the various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. 10. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants is that their prolonged incarceration, without any delay being 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 09/07/2026 at 10:33:42 attributable to them, should by itself constitute a sufficient ground for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment ranging from ten to twenty years along with fine. It is further contended that none of the applicants has any criminal antecedents and that they have remained in custody for a period ranging from four to five years. 11. Accordingly, the applicants are granted regular bail subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Special Judge. 12. The bail applications stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 7, 2026 Tr/SA 5 SLP(Crl.) 14415/2023 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 09/07/2026 at 10:33:42