BAIL APPLN./2372/2026 of KUNAL Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI on 5 August 2026

O R D E R

%

05.08.2026

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 159/2026, dated 19.04.026, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Central, Delhi, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”].

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

3. The applicant was granted interim protection from arrest vide order dated 01.07.2026, recording as follows:

“3.The applicant had earlier sought anticipatory bail before the learned Special Court, which was dismissed by order dated 01.06.2026. Before the learned Special Court, the prosecution had filed a reply, in which the facts of the case were enumerated as follows: a. On the basis of secret information, two co-accused persons, namely Karnail Singh and Gagandeep Singh, were apprehended from Shadipur area on 18.04.2026. Upon search, 12.68 grams and 3.22 grams of a substance, described in the reply as “MD (Narcotics Drugs)”, were recovered from the possession of Gagandeep Singh and Karnail Singh, respectively. It is alleged that the recovered quantity was a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

b. In the disclosure statement of both the aforesaid co- accused persons, they stated that they had purchased the seized narcotic drug from a Nigerian national named “Governor”, and were going to deliver the same to the applicant herein. c. At the instance of the aforesaid co-accused, another co- accused – Prince Peter, was arrested and 2 grams of MD was recovered from his possession.

d. On the basis of Call Detail Records [“CDR”] of Gagandeep Singh and Karnail Singh, the prosecution alleged that the applicant was in touch with Gagandeep Singh, although no details of WhatsApp chats were available, as the applicant had activated the feature of disappearing messages. e. The Investigating Officer [“IO”] served a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, upon the applicant on 11.05.2026 at his residence, but he had failed to join investigation. Thereafter, on 30.05.2026, his mother was contacted on her mobile phone, but she stated that she did not know the whereabouts of her son. f. The material cited in the reply includes 8 calls between Gagandeep Singh and the applicant in the past, as per the CDR of Gagandeep Singh.

4. Mr. Kshitiz Jamuniya, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the material against the applicant comprises only of alleged disclosure statements of co-accused and CDR, without any specific material to link the present applicant to the offence in question.

5. Mr. Srivastava submits, upon instructions from the IO, who is present in Court, that, according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which has been received after the filing of the aforementioned status report before the Special Court, the substance recovered from co-accused Gagandeep Singh and Karnail Singh has been found to be Methamphetamine. The total quantity recovered was 15.9 grams from the aforesaid two accused, and 2 grams from co- accused Prince Peter, which constitutes an intermediate quantity [2 grams to 50 grams]. He also submits, upon instructions, that 7 out of 8 telephone calls, upon which the prosecution relies, were of November 2025, and one call was made in February 2026. However, there is no record of the contents of the call.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that, at this stage, it is appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant. The substance recovered from the co-accused has been found to be Methamphetamine, in which the recovered quantity is admittedly not a commercial quantity, but an intermediate quantity. The twin restrictions on grant of bail, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore, do not apply. Further, there is no recovery alleged against the present applicant but against co-accused, and it is only on the basis of their disclosure statements that the prosecution has sought to proceed against the applicant. The disclosure statements are not supported, at this stage, by any recovery or other corroborative material.

7. As far as the CDR of Gagandeep Singh are concerned, even taking the prosecution case at the highest, 7 calls were made in November 2025, approximately 5 months prior to the secret information and apprehension of Gagandeep Singh, and the 8th call was also made approximately two months prior thereto.”

4. Mr. Srivastava has handed up a status report dated 05.08.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. In the said status report, the Investigating Officer [“IO”] has stated that the applicant joined the investigation, pursuant to notice on 08.07.2026 and 09.07.2026, and produced the mobile phone, which is stated to have been used by him on the date when the co-accused were apprehended, i.e. 19.04.2026. Mr. Srivastava states that the mobile phone has been sent to FSL. However, the prosecution alleges non-cooperation against the applicant on account of the fact that he did not produce the SIM card, which according to him, had been misplaced, and gave false explanations with regard to the alleged messages, audio recordings, and photographs relating to the supply of contraband. It is also alleged that he misled the investigation with regard to his movements and association with co-accused – Gagandeep Singh.

5. It appears from the above that the allegation of non-cooperation against the applicant is, in fact, based upon his refusal to make self incriminatory disclosures. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Bijender v. State of Haryana1 and Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana2 that requirement of co-accused with the investigation does not extend to making self-incriminatory statements.

6. It is also the accepted position that pursuant to interim protection granted by this Court, the applicant joined investigation and also handed over the mobile phone, which was required by the IO. There is no recovery from the applicant and the quantum of Methamphetamine, which was recovered from the co-accused, and is, in fact, of an intermediate quantity, not attracting the twin conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. As stated in the order dated 01.07.2026, the disclosure statement of the co-accused on the basis of which the applicant has been implicated is also not corroborated by any other material at this stage. The co-accused, Karnail Singh and Gagandeep Singh, have also been granted regular bail by the Special Court vide order dated 23.07.2026.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the application is allowed, and it is directed that, in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR No. 159/2026, dated 19.04.026, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Central, Delhi, under Section 22 of NDPS Act, the applicant will be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 1 SLP (Crl.) No. 1079/2024, decided on 06.03.2024. 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 232/2024, decided on 06.03.2024.

Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/IO/Station House Officer, and subject to the following further conditions:

a. The applicant shall join the investigation as and when required by the IO.

b. The applicant will furnish his mobile number to the IO, and shall keep the said mobile phone running and always switched on. The mobile number shall not be changed or switched off without prior intimation to the IO.

c. The applicant will give his residential address to the IO, and will not change his residential address without prior intimation to the IO.

d. The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence.

e. The applicant shall not commit any offence during pendency of these proceedings.

8. The bail application is disposed of.

9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 5, 2026/B/AD/