$~121 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010024472026 + BAIL APPLN. 341/2026 SARTHAK RASSEWETT ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal and Mr. Naveen Panwar, Advs. versus NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ......Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms. Shelly Dixit, Mr. Pranavjeet Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 04.08.2026 1. This application seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. VIII/21/DZU/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 8,22,23,24,25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no recovery from the applicant and that there is no monetary transaction or other incriminating material connecting him with the alleged offence. The allegations regarding fabrication of documents are matters which would require examination during trial. It is submitted that, except Shubham, none of the accused persons has named the applicant and that the applicant is a valid drug licensee. Learned counsel further submits that the 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:07 maximum case against the applicant is the recovery of certain documents, which, at this stage, cannot be treated as clinching material. It is also submitted that Balaji Traders is a registered entity in the name of one Angrez Singh and that there has been no investigation by the respondent regarding the veracity of the said Angrez Singh or the said entity. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Amit Ranjan v. NCB,1 Kunwarpal v. State,2 Abul Kalam v. State,3 and Iliyas Khan v. NCB4. 3. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated, has no criminal antecedents and has already remained in custody for more than one year. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Mr. Arun Khatri, learned SSC for the respondent vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is the mastermind and principal architect of the alleged illegal syndicate. It is contended that sufficient incriminating material has been collected during investigation, which establishes the applicant’s complicity in the alleged offences. He further submits that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case and that the applicant has projected “Balaji Traders” as a fictitious entity, with one Angrez Singh shown as its licensee. 5. It is further submitted that, in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant does not satisfy the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, therefore, not entitled to the grant of bail. He has referred to the following incriminating material 1 2022: DHC: 1985, para 46. 2 2024: DHC: 1423, para 13. 3 2024: DHC: 2138, para 19- 27. 4 2024: DHC: 2646, para 15. 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:07 in support of the prosecution case establishing the applicant’s involvement: “a. Mobile phone extraction reports revealing WhatsApp chats pertaining to procurement, sale and distribution of psychotropic medicines (Pages 131, 146, 238, 295, 306, 307 and 309). b. WhatsApp chats relating to supply of psychotropic medicines to Rohan and Visha, recovered at Pages 146 and 147. c. Call Detail Records (CDRs) establishing continuous communication and coordination between the petitioner and co- accused Shubham Pal. d. Information received from the manufacturer of the seized contraband confirming that medicines of the same batch were supplied to Balaji Traders, an entity owned and controlled by the petitioner. e. Records of Quess Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of the seized medicines, coupled with WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and co-accused Shubham Pal discussing procurement and supply of the said medicines (Pages 121, 140, 289 and 290). f. Tower location analysis corroborating the meetings, movements and coordination between the petitioner and other co-accused during the period of conspiracy. g. Screenshots of financial transactions and banking records establishing monetary dealings through Balaji Traders. h. Email records demonstrating that Balaji Traders was under the complete control and management of the petitioner (Pages 157 and 160). i. Recovery of the Balaji Traders signboard affixed outside the shop premises of the petitioner (Pages 174 and 175). j. Recovery of multiple photographs of psychotropic medicines from the petitioner's mobile phone, including photographs of the seized batch. k. GST registration documents, purchase orders and invoices generated in the name of the fictitious firm Balaji Traders (Pages 41, 61, 113, 143, 219 and 256). 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:07 i. Consignment slips and courier records evidencing transportation of psychotropic medicines pursuant to the conspiracy. m. Multiple orders relating to NRx medicines recovered from the petitioner's mobile phone, directly reflecting his involvement in the illegal trade. n. Recovery of blank signed cheques and forged documents during the course of investigation. o. Digital records establishing procurement of psychotropic medicines from Ahmedabad under the directions and control of the petitioner. p. Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act from the co-accused persons, which stand independently corroborated by electronic evidence, documentary records, financial transactions and other incriminating material collected during investigation.” 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. The facts of the case indicate that the NCB team intercepted a car parked in-front of H.No. 15-HF, Tansen Road, near Bengali Market, Mandi House, New Delhi and, from the search, 12,200 Tramadol tablets, weighing 3.701 kg, were recovered, whereas the commercial quantity prescribed for Tramadol is 250 grams. Thereafter, during follow-up action, the involvement of the present applicant surfaced and he was subsequently arrested. It is alleged that the applicant deliberately created a fictitious firm, namely “Balaji Traders”, by using forged identities and fabricated documents, and used the said entity as a front to place orders with manufacturers and suppliers so as to give an appearance of legitimacy to otherwise illegal transactions. 8. It is further alleged that the applicant used the medical licence and documents of M/s Balaji Traders for procuring Tramadol from M/s Qness 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:07 Pharmaceuticals, Ahmedabad. The prosecution further alleges that the applicant contacted Qness Pharmaceuticals in the name of Balaji Traders and sent demand letters on its letterhead, and that payment towards the seized consignment was made through the bank account of M/s Balaji Traders. The prosecution further relies upon electronic, documentary, financial and other material to allege the applicant’s involvement in the procurement and supply of the recovered contraband. 9. The accusation in the present case relates to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. Once the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, the Court can grant bail only upon satisfaction of the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, namely, (i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, in addition to the usual considerations governing grant of bail. 10. The legal position with regard to the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is well settled. In State of M.P. v. Kajad,5 the Supreme Court, while considering the parameters governing grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity, has held as under: “5. …A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the court that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub- clause(ii) of clause(b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause(b) of subsection (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of 5 (2001) 7 SCC 673 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:07 Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for.” 11. As regards the expression “reasonable grounds” occurring in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, it would be apposite to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan,6 wherein the scope and meaning of the said expression have been explained as under: “14. To sum up, the expression “reasonable grounds” used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove- tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail...” 12. Adverting to the first requirement under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the expression “reasonable grounds” requires something more than mere prima facie grounds and contemplates credible and plausible grounds on the basis of which the Court can believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The prosecution relies upon the material collected during investigation to attribute a role to the applicant in the procurement and supply of the recovered Tramadol. This includes WhatsApp chats recovered from the applicant’s mobile phone, CDRs reflecting communication with co-accused Shubham Pal, documents and banking records concerning M/s Balaji Traders, and the statements of the co-accused. The prosecution further relies upon the material alleging that the applicant used the licence and documents of M/s Balaji Traders for procuring 6 (2021) 10 SCC 100 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:07 Tramadol from M/s Qness Pharmaceuticals and facilitated its subsequent supply. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant has disputed the aforesaid allegations and submitted that there is no recovery from the applicant and that the allegations concerning “Balaji Traders” and the alleged fabrication of documents are matters to be tested at trial. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the evidentiary value of the material relied upon by the prosecution is ultimately a matter for trial. However, at this stage, the Court is required to examine whether the material on record furnishes reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. Having regard to the material relied upon by the prosecution and the role attributed to the applicant therein, this Court is unable to form such an opinion at this stage. 14. As regards the second requirement under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the prosecution alleges that the applicant was the mastermind and principal architect of the illegal syndicate and attributes to him a continuing role in the procurement and supply of NRx/controlled medicines through M/s Balaji Traders. The material relied upon by the prosecution, including the WhatsApp communications, CDRs, tower location analysis, banking records, purchase orders, invoices and other electronic and documentary material, is stated to reflect his involvement in multiple transactions relating to such medicines. 15. Having regard to the nature and manner of the alleged activities and the material relied upon by the prosecution in support thereof, this Court is unable to record a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:07 bail. 16. The material placed on record prima facie indicates the applicant’s alleged involvement in the transactions forming the subject matter of the present case. 17. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, as the applicant has failed to satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. 18. However, nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be considered by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence led before it. 19. The application is therefore, dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 4, 2026 P/S.A. 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:07