BAIL APPLN./2950/2026 of NAVEEN SHARMA @ LALA Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI on 17 August 2026

O R D E R

%

17.08.2026

1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 542/2025 dated 20.09.2025, registered at Police Station Kalkaji, South-East District, Delhi, under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”] [“subject FIR”].

2. I have heard Mr. Divakar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The prosecution has also filed a status report dated 10.08.2026, which is already on record.

4. The case against the applicant has its genesis in secret information received regarding the supply of contraband at a location in Kalkaji. Pursuant to the said information, a police team reached the spot and apprehended three persons, namely, Shishir Kumar Singh, Vinit Tiwari and Ameen, at approximately 04:00 A.M. on 20.09.2025. Upon their apprehension, white crystalline substances were recovered from Shishir Kumar Singh and Vinit Tiwari, weighing 3 grams and 52 grams, respectively, whereas no contraband was recovered from Ameen.

5. During the course of investigation, the co-accused, in their respective disclosure statements, allegedly identified the applicant as the person who had supplied the contraband to them. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was arrested on 28.09.2025, and a small pouch was recovered from the pocket of his trousers. The pouch was found to contain a small glass bottle filled with a white crystalline substance, which weighed 2 grams.

6. Subsequently, at the instance of the applicant, another alleged supplier of contraband, namely, Joseph Emeka, was also arrested. It is further alleged that Joseph Emeka disclosed during investigation that he had been supplying contraband through the applicant.

7. The seized substances were thereafter sampled and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”] in accordance with Section 52 of the NDPS Act. As per the FSL report, all three samples were found to contain Methamphetamine.

8. The prosecution further relies upon the analysis of the Call Detail Records [“CDRs”] to establish telephonic connectivity between the accused persons. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, the prosecution has placed on record that 93 calls were exchanged between the applicant and co-accused Vinit Tiwari during the period from 26.06.2025 to 20.09.2025, 29 calls were exchanged between the applicant and co- accused Ameen during the period from 18.02.2025 to 30.08.2025, and 3

calls were exchanged between the applicant and Joseph Emeka during the period from 03.05.2025 to 13.09.2025.

9. Mr. Upadhyaya submits that the total quantity of Methamphetamine recovered from the applicant is 2 grams, which falls within the range of small quantity. He draws my attention to an order dated 03.11.2025, whereby the learned Special Court granted bail to co- accused Shishir Kumar Singh, from whom 3 grams of Methamphetamine had been recovered. A copy of the said order is handed over in Court and taken on record. In the said order, the learned Special Court proceeded on the basis that the quantities recovered from the three accused persons could not be clubbed and, accordingly, treated the recovery of 3 grams from Shishir Kumar Singh as intermediate quantity. Mr. Upadhyaya submits that the case of the applicant stands on a better footing than that of co-accused Shishir Kumar Singh.

10. Mr. Srivastava does not concede that the quantities recovered from the accused persons are not liable to be clubbed in the facts of the present case, having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court on the issue. He further submits that the recovery from the applicant, even independently, constitutes an intermediate quantity. However, he does not dispute that the case of the applicant is no graver than that of co-accused Shishir Kumar Singh.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

12. Although the matter is presently pending at the stage of arguments on charge before the learned Special Court, the co-accused from whom a greater quantity of contraband was recovered has already been granted bail by the learned Special Court. While granting bail to co-accused Shishir Kumar Singh, the learned Special Court observed that the quantities recovered from the accused persons were not liable to be clubbed. It is also pertinent that Shishir Kumar Singh was apprehended alongwith co-accused Vinit Tiwari, from whom 52 grams of contraband was recovered, whereas the recovery from the applicant was effected subsequently and was independent of the recovery made from the said co- accused.

13. The applicant’s case is, therefore, on a better footing than that of co-accused Shishir Kumar Singh. The individual recovery from the applicant is of a quantity which lies at the cusp between small [less than 2 grams] and intermediate quantity [2 to 50 grams] of Methamphetamine. Further, as in the case of co-accused Shishir Kumar Singh, the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents.

14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with the subject FIR, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, and subject to the following conditions:

a) The applicant shall appear before the learned Special Court on each and every date of hearing;

b) The applicant shall furnish his permanent address, as well as his address of residence during the pendency of the proceedings, to the learned Special Court. In the event of any change in his residential address, the applicant shall intimate the Investigating Officer and file an affidavit to this effect before the learned Special Court; c) The applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer, which shall be kept operational at all times. The applicant shall neither switch off the said mobile number nor change the same without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer during the pendency of the trial;

d) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever;

e) The applicant shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the learned Special Court;

f) The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of his release on bail.

14. The bail application, alongwith any pending applications, is disposed of in terms of the above.

15. It is clarified that the observations contained in the present order are confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case, including at the stage of arguments on charge/framing of charges. The rights and contentions of the parties before the learned Trial Court are left open to be considered in accordance with law.

16. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 17, 2026/tg/SD/