BAIL APPLN. 3655/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010412252026 + BAIL APPLN. 3655/2026 TANISHQ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kapoor, Mr. Nikhil Bahri, Mr. Shikhar Singh and Mr. Sanehit Batra, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks regular bail in FIR No. 273/2025 registered at P.S. Crime Branch (Delhi) for offences under Sections 22/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”]. The Applicant’s previous application for regular bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 23rd July, 2026. 2. The FIR arose from the recovery of 2.013 kg of Tramadol powder from co-accused Anirudh Kumar Rai on 27th September, 2025. The Applicant was neither present at the spot nor named in the FIR. His name surfaced during the subsequent investigation, principally from the disclosures of co-accused Prashant Kumar Sharma and Amit Kumar, who 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:34 BAIL APPLN. 3655/2026 Page 2 of 7 are alleged to have identified him as a further recipient of Tramadol. No contraband was recovered from the Applicant or from his possession. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 22/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits that the material collected during investigation does not advance the prosecution case beyond the disclosures of the co-accused. No contraband has been recovered from the Applicant or at his instance. Placing reliance on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu,1 he submits that such disclosure statements cannot, by themselves, constitute substantive incriminating material against the Applicant. As regards the alleged corroborative material, the prosecution relies upon CDR/WhatsApp/Zangi App connectivity and two financial transactions of INR 8,000/- and INR 2,000/-. It is urged that this material, at best, establishes contact between the parties, but does not presently demonstrate that either the communications or the transactions were connected with the contraband forming subject matter of the present FIR. Mr. Mittal also seeks parity with co-accused Kishore Shilpi, who was granted regular bail by the Special Judge (NDPS), South-East District, Saket Courts, vide order dated 04th May, 2026, contending that the role attributed to him is substantially similar to that of the Applicant. He further relies upon the decision of this Court in Vinay Dua v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi,2 wherein bail was granted in circumstances stated to be similar to the present case. 4. Mr Tarang Srivastav, APP for the State, opposes the application and 1 (2021) 4 SCC 1. 2 2025:DHC:4955. 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:34 BAIL APPLN. 3655/2026 Page 3 of 7 submits that the Applicant is not sought to be implicated merely on the basis of the disclosures of the co-accused. According to the prosecution, Prashant supplied Tramadol powder to the Applicant; the Applicant thereafter came in contact with Kishore Shilpi and, through him, with Arun Kumar, who allegedly manufactured Tramadol tablets from the supplied powder. The tablets were then handed back to the Applicant and are stated to have been further circulated through his associate in Delhi/NCR. Reliance is placed upon the alleged CDR, WhatsApp and Zangi App connectivity between the accused persons, the financial links noticed during investigation, and the screenshots forming part of the chargesheet. The prosecution also relies upon the proceedings undertaken by the Drugs Department at Biva Healthcare, Patna, where raw material and medicines were seized. On this basis, it is contended that the Applicant forms part of the alleged procurement and manufacturing chain and, the case involving commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fully attracted. 5. There can be little doubt that Section 37 is attracted, the alleged recovery being of commercial quantity. The Court is, therefore, required to be satisfied, at this stage, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. This does not require a finding of innocence, nor does it permit a detailed weighing of the evidence as at the conclusion of trial. The enquiry remains tentative and confined to the material presently available. The distinction is important in the present case. 6. The first circumstance which stands out is that there is no recovery of any narcotic or psychotropic substance from the Applicant. His implication originates from the disclosures of the co-accused. Those statements may 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:34 BAIL APPLN. 3655/2026 Page 4 of 7 explain the course which the investigation thereafter took; however, having regard to the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, statements made to officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statements in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. The case against the Applicant must, therefore, be examined with reference to the other material collected during investigation which is stated to connect him with the alleged offence. 7. On this aspect, the material presently shown to the Court does not, prima facie, bridge the gap. The prosecution relies upon the fact that the Applicant was in communication with some of the co-accused, including through the Zangi App. Communication with the co-accused is undoubtedly relevant; however, its mere existence does not establish that it concerned the alleged contraband or the transactions in question. Unless the material accompanying that communication reasonably connects it with the procurement, manufacture or supply of the contraband in question, connectivity by itself cannot carry the prosecution case very far at the stage of bail. Significantly, in the prosecution’s own evidence matrix qua the Applicant, the physical evidence shown is the recovery of one mobile phone, whose FSL result was awaited; the documentary material refers to Instagram/CDR connectivity with Prashant Kumar Sharma and the Drugs Department inspection report. 8. The financial transactions do not materially strengthen the prosecution case at this stage. The two amounts relied upon are INR 8,000/- and INR 2,000/-. Nothing presently shown to the Court identifies either payment as consideration for the Tramadol allegedly supplied to the Applicant. The transactions may be proved and explained at trial; standing alone, however, 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:34 BAIL APPLN. 3655/2026 Page 5 of 7 they do not establish the necessary link with the contraband. 9. The decision in Vinay Dua is also relevant. There, the allegations founded on the disclosures of co-accused were sought to be corroborated by financial transactions, CDR connectivity and electronic communications. The Court observed that whether the financial transactions and WhatsApp chats were connected with the contraband was a matter to be ascertained upon evidence being led, and found an absence of substantial corroboration lending credence to the disclosure statements. On that basis, the Court held that the embargo under Section 37 did not preclude the grant of bail. The present case must, of course, turn on its own material; however, a similar evidentiary issue arises here. 10. The proceedings at Biva Healthcare do not take the prosecution case any further. The Drugs Department seized raw material and medicines from the premises, but none of the material seized is stated to be Tramadol or any other contraband. Indeed, the prosecution’s evidence matrix notes only the recovery of one mobile phone from the Applicant and separately refers to the Drugs Department inspection report. In the absence of anything connecting the material seized at Biva Healthcare with the contraband in the present case, those proceedings do not provide corroboration against the Applicant. 11. The order granting bail to co-accused Kishore Shilpi also merits consideration. Parity in an NDPS prosecution depends on the role attributed to each accused and the material supporting it; it cannot be applied mechanically. Insofar as Kishore Shilpi is concerned, he is alleged to have introduced the Applicant to Arun Kumar for manufacturing the tablets. The prosecution also relies upon electronic communications and CDR against 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:34 BAIL APPLN. 3655/2026 Page 6 of 7 him. He was granted bail on 04th May, 2026 after the Sessions Court noted the absence of recovery, his implication through disclosures of co-accused, and the completion of investigation. In the case of the Applicant, the Sessions Court distinguished him on the ground that he was directly connected with an illegal manufacturing unit. Given that no contraband under the present FIR was recovered from Biva Healthcare, the material presently available does not make that distinction sufficient to warrant a different result. 12. Considered cumulatively, the material presently available does not disclose substantial and probable grounds for believing that the Applicant is guilty of the alleged offence. This is a prima facie assessment, not a final evaluation of admissibility or proof. The Court is therefore satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing, at this stage, that the Applicant is not guilty, as required by Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 13. The second condition is also satisfied. The Applicant has no previous involvement or conviction, and his nominal roll records satisfactory jail conduct. He has remained in custody since 08th February, 2026. The investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed. No material has been placed before the Court to indicate that he is likely to commit an offence while on bail. The apprehensions of absconding or interference with the trial can be addressed by appropriate conditions. 14. The Applicant’s earlier bail application before this Court was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Sessions Court and was not decided on merits. The rejection of the subsequent application by the Sessions Court does not, therefore, bar an independent consideration of the present application. 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:34 BAIL APPLN. 3655/2026 Page 7 of 7 15. The application is accordingly allowed. The Applicant shall be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of INR 25,000/- with one two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: i. The Applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Trial Court and shall surrender his passport, if any; ii. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and when directed by the concerned Investigating Officer; iii. He shall furnish his current residential address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and promptly intimate any change in either; iv. He shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments; v. He shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten or influence any prosecution witness, or tamper with the evidence in any manner; and vi. He shall not engage in any criminal activity while on bail. 16. If any of these conditions is breached, the State may seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 17. The observations in this order are confined to the present bail application and are tentative. They shall not influence the trial on merits. 18. The application is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 nk 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:34