$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010773132025 + BAIL APPLN. 3881/2025 RAHIMUDDIN @ CHOTU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Firoz Iqbal Khan, Mr. Sajid Ahmed, Mr. Mohammed Faizan and Ms. Shaila Khan, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State with SI Sohan Thakur. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. The applicant vide the instant application seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.255/2025 for offence punishable under Sections 21/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at PS Bhalswa Dairy. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He submits that the name of one Chotu @ Chote has been disclosed by the main accused, whereas, the name of the present applicant is Rahimuddin. The applicant has no connection with said Chote @ Chotu. 3. Submission made on behalf of the applicant are vehemently opposed 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 12/08/2026 at 10:51:16 by learned APP for the State and he contends that the present applicant has been declared a proclaimed offender on 04.07.2026. He also contends that there is no distinction between Chote @ Chotu and Rahimuddin. 4. The aforesaid fact has been verified from the neighbours of Rahimuddin. Reference is made to the statements of neighbours namely Rizwan and Rani. It has been stated by Rani that the address of the present applicant belongs to Salim, who is the father of Rahimuddin. The statement of Farukh has also been recorded. 5. In paragraph no.5 of the status report, following position has been taken:- “5. That from the above verification conducted at both addresses, it is revealed that the claim of accused Rahimuddin of having a separate residential address different from the address against which PO proceedings are pending is not substantiated. Rather, the verification conducted establishes that the address at C.D. Park, Jahangirpuri belongs to the family of accused Rahimuddin and the same is connected with him.” 6. Besides the aforesaid aspect, the previous status report filed by the State would indicate as under:- “6. Subsequently, the Ld. Trial Court issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against accused Rahimuddin @ Chottu @ Chotte, and proceedings under Section 84 BNSS have been initiated against him. The next date of hearing before the Trial Court is 05/05/2026. 7. Now, the alleged/applicant Rahimuddin @ Chottu @ Chotte has filed the present application seeking anticipatory bail. It is respectfully submitted that accused Sahidul, during interrogation, categorically disclosed that the contraband recovered from him was supplied by the alleged/applicant Chottu @ Chotte. 8. It is further submitted that the mother of the alleged/applicant, namely Rahima @ Butti, and his sisters Najma and Ismat Tara, are also involved in cases under the NDPS Act. This clearly reflects that the entire family of the applicant is engaged in activities relating to drug trafficking. 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 12/08/2026 at 10:51:16 9. Considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant's continuous abscondence, and his non-cooperation during investigation, the custodial interrogation of the alleged/applicant is essential for effective investigation. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be dismissed. However, the undersigned undertakes to abide by any direction issued by this Hon'ble Court.” 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar,1 has also held that the rule of disclosure statements made under Section 50 of the NDPS Act not being admissible does not apply while adjudicating upon a pre-arrest bail. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted as under: “8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.” 8. In view of the aforesaid, no ground to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail is made out. The applicant shall surrender before the concerned authority. 9. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 5, 2026 Nc /Rao 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087. 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 12/08/2026 at 10:51:16