BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 $~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010279332026 + BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 ABHAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kanahiya Singhal, Mr. Prasanna, Mr. Ajay, Ms. Shambhavi and Ms. Avantika Shankar, Advs. versus CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC along with Ms. Arya Suresh Nair and Mr. Akhil Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail on behalf of the petitioner/accused Abhay Kumar, in connection with a complaint arising out of File No. VIII(AP)10/P&I/5530-C/Arrival/2026, for offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b), 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) 3. Brief facts are that on 01.01.2026, co-accused Nitin arrived at T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, from Bangkok by Flight No. AI 2303, and 10.275 kg of ganja was recovered from his baggage and seized under the NDPS Act vide Panchnama dated 01.01.2026. 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:47 BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 4. During investigation, co-accused Nitin allegedly tendered a statement admitting possession of the contraband and disclosed the name of the present petitioner, Abhay Kumar. 5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 12.02.2026 and allegedly tendered his statement on the same date. He was thereafter arrested on 13.02.2026 on the allegation that he was involved in the trafficking and conspiracy relating to the recovered contraband. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, either from his possession, residence or vehicle. The recovery of 10.275 kg of ganja was effected from co-accused Nitin, and the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the said co-accused. It is submitted that the disclosure statement of Nitin did not lead to any recovery from the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to establish any financial transaction or other material connecting the petitioner with Nitin or with the recovered contraband. It is submitted that although the prosecution relies upon call records and WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and the co-accused, the said communications do not contain any specific reference to the contraband in question and, therefore, cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's involvement. 8. It is further submitted that the disclosure statement of co-accused Nitin, recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot be relied upon in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. Reliance is also placed upon State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, 2022 INSC 26 and Bharat Chaudhary v. 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:47 BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 Union of India 2021, SCC OnLine SC 1235 in support of the submission that, in the absence of recovery or other material establishing a live link with the contraband, the disclosure statement of a co-accused and mere CDR/WhatsApp connectivity are insufficient at the stage of bail. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner disputes the voluntariness and evidentiary value of his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It is pointed out that the summons was issued on 12.02.2026 requiring the petitioner to appear on the same day and his statement was also recorded on the same date. It is contended that the statement is in a stereotyped question-and-answer form, that the signatures appearing on the pages are different and that the petitioner had signed blank papers, which according to him raises a serious question regarding the voluntariness and genuineness of the statement. It is submitted that the evidentiary value of the said statement is a matter to be considered at trial and cannot, at this stage, be treated as conclusive against the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a young person with no previous criminal involvement and has been in custody since 13.02.2026. It is submitted that he had appeared before the Customs authorities pursuant to the summons and joined the investigation, and was thereafter arrested. The investigation qua the petitioner is complete and the supplementary complaint has already been filed; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. 11. It is further submitted that the recovered quantity is intermediate quantity and not commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. Learned counsel submits that the mere fact that certain other accused persons are yet to be arrested or have not joined 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:47 BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 investigation cannot be a ground to continue the petitioner's incarceration. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present case is not based merely on the statement of co-accused Nitin. Reliance is placed upon the independent digital evidence collected during investigation, the petitioner’s own statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the forensic examination of his mobile phone, the forensic examination of the DVR containing CCTV footage from the vicinity of his residence, as well as WhatsApp chats and call records showing communication between the petitioner, co-accused Nitin and Farhan. 13. It is submitted that the investigation has further revealed the involvement of a larger syndicate, including Farhan, stated to be the kingpin, Nida Aqsa, stated to be the wife of Farhan, Faizan, who is alleged to be involved in gold smuggling, and Danish. Learned counsel submits that these persons have not joined the investigation despite summons having been issued to them. 14. Learned counsel submits that the forensic examination of the petitioner’s mobile phone revealed regular communication between the petitioner, Nitin and Farhan. It is further submitted that the material recovered from the phone indicates that the petitioner was working for Farhan, that Farhan and the petitioner were discussing Nitin and awaiting his arrival, and that Farhan had transferred money to the petitioner through a QR code. It is submitted that the communication continued till the interception of Nitin. 15. Learned counsel further submits that certain WhatsApp messages between the persons involved were deleted. Reliance is placed upon the forensic extraction of the mobile phone to submit that the deleted chats form part of the digital evidence collected during investigation. 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:47 BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 16. It is submitted that the prosecution case, therefore, cannot be said to rest solely upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Nitin, and that there is independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. 17. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s own statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act is voluntary and constitutes material against him. The allegation of coercion raised by the petitioner, according to the respondent, is a matter which cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of bail. 18. It is further submitted that the present case forms part of an organised cross-border smuggling network and that, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s foreign travel and his alleged links with other persons involved in the network, there is a likelihood of the petitioner absconding or influencing the evidence or witnesses. 19. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, as well as the judgments relied upon by both sides. 20. It is not in dispute that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. The contraband weighing 10.275 kg was recovered from the trolley bag of co-accused Nitin. The petitioner, however, is sought to be connected with the said recovery on the basis of the material collected during investigation, including the statement of co-accused Nitin, the petitioner’s own statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the electronic and forensic material. 21. This Court is conscious that, while considering a bail application, it is not required to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence. However, absence of recovery from the petitioner, by itself, cannot be determinative. The Court is required to consider the nature and 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:47 BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 gravity of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the role attributed to the petitioner and the overall circumstances of the case. 22. The principal submissions on behalf of the petitioner are that there was no recovery from him; that his implication substantially rests upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused; that his own statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act has been disputed; and that the WhatsApp chats and other electronic material do not establish his involvement. Learned counsel has also relied upon Toofan Singh (supra) to contend that the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be relied upon in the manner suggested by the prosecution. 23. The prosecution case, however, is not founded merely upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused. The material placed before the Court also includes the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the contents of which are of considerable relevance at this stage. 24. In response to Question No. 4, the petitioner is stated to have specifically admitted that the 11 packets containing the suspected NDPS substance, weighing 10.275 kg, recovered from the trolley bag of Nitin, belonged to him. He is further stated to have disclosed that Farhan had directed him to ask Nitin to travel to Bangkok for smuggling the said substance into India and that, after its arrival at IGI Airport, the substance was to be delivered to Farhan through him. The statement also records an alleged arrangement for payment of ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- to the petitioner and Nitin. 25. The petitioner is further stated to have disclosed his association with Farhan since 2023, besides details of his previous foreign trips and alleged gold-smuggling activities. This Court is not expressing any final opinion 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:47 BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 the truth or evidentiary value of these allegations. However, the contents of the statement cannot be completely disregarded at the stage of considering the prayer for bail. 26. The petitioner has disputed the voluntariness of the said statement. The Supreme Court in Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC OnLine 292, relying upon K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin, (1997) 3 SCC 721, has reiterated that a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, if voluntary, is admissible and constitutes substantive evidence. The question of voluntariness and the ultimate evidentiary value of the statement would be a matter for trial. However, at this stage, keeping in mind the financial transactions revealed during the forensic examination, the said statement cannot, therefore, be completely brushed aside. 27. The prosecution further relies upon the forensic examination of the petitioner’s mobile phone, which, as per the status report, revealed communications between the petitioner, Nitin and Farhan concerning the alleged operation, coordination regarding Nitin and financial transactions, including transfer of money through a QR code. The prosecution also relies upon the forensic examination of the DVR containing CCTV footage from the vicinity of the petitioner’s residence. Thus, the material relied upon by the prosecution extends beyond the statement of the co-accused. 28. The status report has revealed the involvement of a larger syndicate comprising Farhan, Nida Aqsa, Faizan and Danish, and that certain persons allegedly connected with the syndicate have not joined the investigation despite issuance of summons. The prosecution relies upon these circumstances to contend that the present case forms part of an organised and 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:47 BAIL APPLN. 2474/2026 transnational operation. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and, therefore, do not advance the case of the petitioner. 29. This Court is mindful of the serious and deleterious impact of illicit drugs and narcotic substances on society, particularly on the younger generation. Drug trafficking has the potential to put an entire society at stake. Its consequences are not confined to the persons directly involved in the offence, but extend to society at large, with the youth being particularly vulnerable to the menace of drug abuse. Courts, while considering offences involving narcotic substances and organised smuggling, are therefore required to approach the matter with due regard to the gravity of such offences and their larger societal impact. 30. In view of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the forensic material extracted from the petitioner’s mobile phone, the communications and financial transactions revealed therein, and the allegations regarding his involvement in a larger smuggling syndicate, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. 31. It is made clear that the observations contained herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not, in any manner, be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 32. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/ys/rm 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:47