Delhi High Court
Rahul vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) on 10 July, 2025
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10.07.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1779/2025
RAHUL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. C.M. Sangwan, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kr. Bahri, APP with Ms.
Divya Yadav, Advocate for the State
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. In pre-lunch session, the matter was passed over as neither the counsel
for accused/applicant nor the IO appeared. In this post-lunch session,
learned counsel for accused/applicant and the IO have appeared. I have
heard learned APP for State and learned counsel for accused/applicant.
2. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 71/2025 of
PS Burari for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act.
3. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is
recovery of 58.6 grams heroin, which is an intermediate quantity, so bar
under Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply. The accused/applicant was
arrested on 23.03.2025 and remains in jail since then, though for three days
he was granted interim bail after which he surrendered.
BAIL APPLN. 1779/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.10 17:45:17
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:10.07.2025
18:16:34
4. On last date, learned APP had alleged that there are Call Detail
Records between the accused/applicant and co-accused Simran and voice
notes reflecting the complicity of the accused/applicant in the offence.
Today in pre-lunch session, the IO did not appear, so matter was passed over
awaiting those CDRs and voice notes. Now, the IO has produced the voice
notes in a pendrive which is played in court room. The voice notes are
completely vague and nothing can be deduced from the same, much less
complicity of the accused/applicant in the crime. As regards CDRs, the same
have not been shown and even otherwise, according to prosecution also, the
accused/applicant and co-accused Simran are living together, so their
telephonic connectivity does not lead to any inference of complicity in
crime.
5. So far as the alleged recovery of contraband is concerned, the same
was not in consequence of any disclosure statement, but a search carried out
in the premises, occupied jointly by the accused/applicant and suspect
Simran.
6. In other words, currently there is no cogent evidence to connect the
accused/applicant with the alleged offence.
7. Considering the above circumstances, the application is allowed and
the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
BAIL APPLN. 1779/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.10 17:45:34 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:10.07.2025
18:16:34
8. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
being conveyed to the accused/applicant forthwith.
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.10
17:45:47 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JULY 10, 2025/ry
BAIL APPLN. 1779/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
