BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 Page 1 of 8 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010352412026 + BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 MANOJ PRADHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Mr. Naveen Panwar and Mr. Md. Yasir, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for State. SI Pawan Kumar, SPL Staff North Distt. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 seeks regular bail in FIR No. 133/2025 registered at P.S. Civil Lines for offences under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19852. The Applicant was arrested on 27th April, 2026 and has since been charge-sheeted under Sections 20, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, besides Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As per the Nominal Roll, the Applicant had undergone 3 months and 28 days of custody as on 28th August, 2026 and has, as on date, undergone 1 “BNSS” 2 “NDPS Act” 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:43 BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 Page 2 of 8 approximately 5 months of custody. 2. The prosecution case originates from the apprehension of co-accused Vikas Kumar, Manjay Kumar and Kushindra Kumar on 4th March, 2025. Ganja weighing 1,277.1 grams and 677.9 grams was recovered from Vikas and Manjay, respectively, during their personal search. Subsequent searches led to the recovery of 12.882 kilograms from their rented premises and a further 37.100 kilograms from two courier parcels. No contraband has been recovered from the present Applicant, either from his person or at his instance. 3. The Applicant was brought into the case principally on the disclosures of Vikas and Manjay that they procured Ganja from him in Odisha. The prosecution additionally relies upon a mobile number found saved in Manjay’s phone in the name of “Orissa Manoj Phulwani” and bank transactions aggregating to ₹3 lakh from the accounts of Vikas and Manjay to the Applicant during November and December, 2024. It is also alleged that the Applicant did not initially join the investigation and surrendered only after coercive processes had been initiated. 4. Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, counsel for the Applicant, submits that the prosecution case rests substantially on the disclosures of the co-accused, which by themselves do not constitute substantive evidence. No contraband was recovered from the Applicant or at his instance. The financial transactions relied upon by the prosecution have not been linked to any particular consignment, nor has any electronic communication been recovered which directly connects him with the seized contraband. Reliance is also placed upon the order dated 19th March, 2026 passed in BAIL APPLN. 4206/2025 and BAIL APPLN. 4207/2025, whereby co-accused 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:43 BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 Page 3 of 8 Vikas Kumar and Manjay Kumar were enlarged on bail. 5. Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for the State, opposes the application. It is submitted that the Applicant cannot be treated as a peripheral participant, the prosecution case being that he was the source from whom Ganja was being regularly procured. The financial transactions between the Applicant and the co-accused are relied upon as corroborative of their disclosures. The State also places emphasis on the Applicant’s conduct during investigation, particularly his failure to join despite notices and the initiation of coercive process. It is further pointed out that the Applicant has a previous conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. On these grounds, it is urged that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is squarely attracted and its twin conditions are not satisfied. 6. Section 37 must therefore be addressed. While granting bail to Vikas and Manjay, this Court found a prima facie uncertainty as to whether the quantity of Ganja, properly determined in accordance with its statutory definition, crossed the commercial-quantity threshold. That issue does not, however, conclude the matter in the Applicant’s favour, since he also faces a charge under Section 27A, which independently attracts Section 37. The Court must therefore examine whether both statutory conditions are satisfied. 7. In Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara3, the Supreme Court reiterated that both conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are required to be fulfilled, and that absence of recovery from the accused, by itself, is no answer. At the same time, the enquiry at the stage of bail is not 3 2026 INSC 870 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:43 BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 Page 4 of 8 one of determining guilt.4 As explained in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State5, the Court is to look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably assess whether the accused’s guilt may be proved. The satisfaction that the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading of the material, and does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation. 8. Tested on that standard, the material against the Applicant presently leaves important gaps. No contraband was recovered from him or at his instance. His implication begins with the disclosures of Vikas and Manjay. Those disclosures could undoubtedly provide an investigative lead, but what the investigation produced in corroboration assumes significance. The mobile number attributed to the Applicant was found saved in Manjay’s phone; that circumstance indicates a connection between them, but does not by itself connect the Applicant with the seized consignments. Significantly, the CDR analysis forming part of the charge-sheet records no voice-call contact between the Applicant’s number and the numbers used by Vikas, Manjay or Kushindra. The State’s latest status report also acknowledges that forensic examination of the phones recovered from the co-accused is still awaited. The courier material, as presently placed, similarly does not identify the Applicant as one of the persons who brought or booked the seized parcels. 9. The bank transactions are certainly relevant and cannot be brushed aside. The record shows transfers aggregating to ₹3 lakh to the Applicant’s account during November and December 2024. Indeed, the order granting 4 See Also: Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 18 SCC 374 5 (2023) 18 SCC 166 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:43 BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 Page 5 of 8 bail to Vikas and Manjay records that ₹1 lakh each was transferred by them on 24th November, 2024, followed by another ₹1 lakh from Vikas on 3rd December, 2024. What is presently missing is the link between these payments and the contraband which forms the subject matter of the prosecution. No transaction has been connected with a particular courier booking or consignment, or with any contemporaneous communication concerning its procurement or dispatch. The prosecution may establish that connection at trial. At this stage, however, the transfers establish a financial dealing; their purpose cannot be assumed merely from their existence. 10. The charge under Section 27A requires separate consideration. The provision is directed at financing, directly or indirectly, the activities constituting illicit traffic, or harbouring persons engaged in them. In Mohammed Fasrin v. State6, the Supreme Court observed that an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act is that the prosecution must establish that the accused had financed, directly or indirectly, any of the activities specified in Section 2(viii-a), or had harboured any person engaged in such activities. Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India7 further clarifies that the mere fact that a sale or purchase of contraband involves a monetary transaction does not, by itself, amount to “financing” under Section 27A. The Court held that “financing” entails providing funds to make the illicit activity operational or to sustain it and necessarily relates to activities involving illegal trade or business. 11. The prosecution here relies upon the credits to the Applicant’s account as corroborative of its allegation that he was the supplier. The 6 (2019) 8 SCC 811 7 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 990 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:43 BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 Page 6 of 8 money, however, moved to the Applicant. There is presently no material showing that he provided funds or financial support for the procurement, transportation, storage or distribution undertaken by the co-accused. The transactions may therefore have relevance to the allegation of supply or conspiracy; on the material presently available, they do not, without more, prima facie establish the distinct ingredient of financing under Section 27A. 12. The order granting bail to Vikas and Manjay does not place the Applicant on the same footing. The role attributed to him is different, and unlike them, he has a prior conviction under the NDPS Act. The order dated 19th March, 2026 is nonetheless relevant because it concerns the same seizure. This Court had found that the quantity of Ganja could not then be determined with certainty, since branches, leaves and grass-like material had been weighed together with the parts of the cannabis plant that fall within the statutory definition. The Court had also prima facie noted that samples were not drawn separately from each packet, contrary to the prescribed procedure. These infirmities concern the seizure itself and remain relevant even though the Applicant is alleged to have supplied the contraband. They bear upon the first limb of Section 37, though they are not conclusive by themselves. 13. The Applicant’s previous conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act is a serious circumstance and must inform the enquiry under the second limb of Section 37. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in 2014, and the Chhattisgarh High Court suspended the substantive sentence on 3rd May, 2019, after he had undergone half of it. The present accusation arises after his release in that appeal, and the antecedent cannot be discounted merely because the conviction remains under challenge. 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:43 BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 Page 7 of 8 However, having regard to the material presently available, the possibility of his committing any offence while on bail can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions. 14. The Applicant’s earlier failure to join the investigation is another circumstance which cannot be ignored. Notices were issued, coercive process followed, and he ultimately surrendered after his anticipatory bail application was declined. The position, however, has since altered: he has undergone custodial interrogation, and the supplementary charge-sheet qua him stands filed. 15. In view of the findings recorded above, the application is allowed. The Applicant shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; (ii) before release, he shall furnish his complete permanent and present residential addresses and mobile number to the Trial Court and the Investigating Officer, and shall not change either without prior intimation; (iii) he shall mark his presence before the concerned Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month; (iv) he shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court and shall not leave India without prior permission of that Court; (v) he shall appear before the Trial Court on every date unless exempted and shall join any further investigation as and when required on reasonable notice; (vi) he shall not contact, threaten or influence any prosecution witness, nor tamper with the evidence in any manner. In the event of breach of any condition, or involvement in any offence under the NDPS Act while on bail, 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:43 BAIL APPLN. 3114/2026 Page 8 of 8 it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of bail. 16. It is clarified that the observations above are confined to the present application and shall not influence the Trial Court at any stage of the proceedings. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:43