Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./2986/2026 of VIJAY PATHAK Vs DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE DRI on 30 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010338692026 + BAIL APPLN. 2986/2026 VIJAY PATHAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amar Phogat, Mr. Apoorv S., Mr. Vikarm Tiwary, Mr. Mohit Yadav and Mr. Aman Anand, Advs. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE DRI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish
$~4
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010338692026
+
BAIL APPLN. 2986/2026
VIJAY PATHAK
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Amar Phogat, Mr. Apoorv S., Mr.
Vikarm Tiwary, Mr. Mohit Yadav and
Mr. Aman Anand, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE DRI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing
Counsel and Mr. Gagan Vaswani,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 30.09.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking grant of regular bail in file No. DRI/HQ- GI/338/XVIII/ENQ- 14/INT-NIL/2024 in (SC No. 78 of 2025) for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c),23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS’ Act ').
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of arrest were never supplied to the petitioner on a separate piece of paper in writing, and on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. He further submits that even the contraband recovered from the petitioner was deposited in the malkhana after a delay of four days, which creates suspicion regarding the recovery allegedly made from the petitioner.
5. He further submits that though the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of cocaine, the FSL report records the substance as Cocaine Hydrochloride when the sample was examined. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has been in custody for more than two years and, out of 55 prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined. He submits that, keeping in view the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the Arrest Memo duly records that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused and that he had also informed his son regarding his arrest. He further submits that the delay in depositing the contraband in the Malkhana was not intentional, but was due to compelling circumstances, as the intervening days included Saturday, Sunday and a holiday on account of Rakhi.
7. He further submits that merely because the sample was found to be Cocaine Hydrochloride in the FSL report does not make any difference, as 3.746 kg of cocaine was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which constitutes commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) shall come into play.
8. The Court has heard both the parties.
9. Regarding the arrest, the Arrest Memo itself records that the petitioner had stated that the grounds of arrest had been told to him and that he had also informed his son regarding his arrest. As far as the delay in depositing the contraband is concerned, the explanation furnished by the respondent cannot be ignored at this stage, particularly as the same is a matter for trial. Regarding the difference in the contents, the charge regarding recovery and possession of commercial quantity, i.e., 2097.2 gms. of Cocaine Hydrochloride, has already been framed against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court.
10. Keeping in view the fact that commercial quantity of more than 2 kgs. has been recovered from the petitioner, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into play.
11. At this stage, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/b/yt