$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010412152026 + BAIL APPLN. 3653/2026 and CRL.M.A. 27090/2026 FIROZ ALI ALIAS VICKY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prateek Tanmay, Ms. Nisha Kumari & Ms. Kumud Jha, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State along with IO. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. This application, filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 30/2026 dated 21.02.2026, registered at Crime Branch (Anti-Narcotics Task Force), Old Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). 2. The applicant’s application for anticipatory bail came to be dismissed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 14.08.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court by way of the present application. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that, apart from the disclosure 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 05/09/2026 at 09:46:13 statement of the applicant’s son, Imran, there is no other material against the applicant. It is contended that, as per the position taken by the prosecuting agency before the trial Court, the source of the contraband was Raveena @ Bhawna, who has already been granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the mere pendency of another FIR under the NDPS Act ought not, by itself, to be a ground to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail, more so as the applicant has already been enlarged on regular bail in that pending FIR. 4. The application is opposed by the APP for the State. It is submitted that, besides the pendency of the present NDPS case, the entire family of the applicant is involved in offences of a similar nature. There are four FIRs pending against the wife of the applicant, and FIRs pending against his elder son and daughter as well. It is further submitted that the applicant has been named in the disclosure statement of his son, Imran, from whose possession the commercial quantity of 1022 grams of heroin was recovered, and that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary in order to unearth the entire drug racket. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.02.2026 a quantity of 1022 grams of heroin, comprising two packets weighing 282 grams and 740 grams respectively, which constitutes a commercial quantity, was recovered from the possession of one Imran @ Sher Khan, the son of the applicant. In his disclosure statement, Imran @ Sher Khan is stated to have named the applicant, as also one Raveena @ Bhawna, alleged to be the source of the contraband. It is on the said basis that the applicant has 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 05/09/2026 at 09:46:13 arrayed as an accused in the present FIR. 7. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,1 wherein it was held that the power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an extraordinary discretionary remedy, to be exercised sparingly and upon a careful balancing of the individual’s right to personal liberty against the investigational powers of the police, and that it cannot be invoked on the basis of vague or general apprehensions. 8. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement,2 the Supreme Court reiterated that the power under Section 438 is an extraordinary power, to be exercised only in exceptional cases; that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule; and that the Court must remain circumspect, since the grant of such bail interferes, to an extent, with the investigation of an offence. 9. These considerations acquire a heightened significance in offences under the NDPS Act involving a commercial quantity of contraband, which are governed by the stringent regime of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal,3 the Supreme Court held that the limitations imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act operate not only upon the power to grant bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code, but also upon the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 thereof, so that the conditions prescribed by Section 37 must guide the exercise of that power. 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565. 2(2019) 9 SCC 24. 3(1991) 1 SCC 705. 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 05/09/2026 at 09:46:13 10. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh,4 the Supreme Court, adverting to the grave menace posed by drug trafficking to society, cautioned that the power to grant bail in offences under the NDPS Act must be exercised with due regard to the mandate of Section 37, and not liberally. 11. Insofar as the necessity of custodial interrogation is concerned, in State (through CBI) v. Anil Sharma,5 the Supreme Court observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than the questioning of a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code; and the antecedents of an applicant are, likewise, a relevant consideration in the exercise of this discretion, as recognised in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain.6 12. The principal plank of the applicant’s case, namely, that no recovery has been effected from him and that he has been implicated only on the strength of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, does not, at the stage of anticipatory bail, enure to his benefit. A like contention fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar,7 where pre-arrest bail had been granted to the respondents on the ground that no recovery had been effected from them and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused, in reliance upon Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.8 13. In the aforesaid case, setting aside the grant of pre-arrest bail, the Supreme Court held that the benefit of the decision in Tofan Singh, as to the 4(1999) 9 SCC 429. 5(1997) 7 SCC 187. 6(2008) 1 SCC 213. 72022 SCC OnLine SC 2087. 8(2021) 4 SCC 1. 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 05/09/2026 at 09:46:13 admissibility of a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, may be availed of by the accused at the stage of arguing the regular bail application, or at the time of final hearing after the conclusion of the trial, but that the grant of anticipatory bail in a case of that nature is not warranted. The said principle applies to the present case with equal force.The applicant may urge these aspects at the stage of regular bail or at the trial, but they do not, at the present stage, entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail. 14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, a commercial quantity of 1022 grams of heroin has been recovered from the possession of the applicant’s son, Imran, and the applicant stands named in the latter’s disclosure statement. 15. Having regard to the antecedents of the applicant and of the members of his family, the gravity of the accusation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth the entire drug racket, and bearing in mind the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the present is not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. 16. Accordingly, the instant application seeking anticipatory bail stands dismissed. 17. The applicant shall, however, be at liberty to apply for regular bail in the event that he surrenders. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 aks 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 05/09/2026 at 09:46:13