Delhi High Court
Suraj Bhan vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 22 May, 2025
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1971/2025 & CRL.M.A. 15967/2025
SURAJ BHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek and Mr. Umesh Kumar,
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for
State with ASI Raj Kumar, PS
Dwarka North.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR
No.137/2025 of PS Dwarka North for offences under Section 08/20/25
NDPS Act. Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that
on the basis of a secret information, car bearing no.DL-8C-AB-0724 was
intercepted and 12 kilograms 10 grams of ganja was recovered from the
same. The said car was owned by the present accused/applicant though
being driven by co-accused Anil. Accordingly, after further investigations,
the IO zeroed down on the accused/applicant but the latter absconded, so the
BAIL APPLN. 1971/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.22 16:59:26 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:22.05.2025
17:25:28
IO obtained non-bailable warrants against him.
2. In the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits
that the accused/applicant is innocent as his role was only to give his
personal car on rent to Anil and he was not aware about the usage of the car.
However, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he has no
documentary material in support of this submission.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant places reliance on order dated
03.11.2023 passed by a coordinate bench in the case of Babli vs State of
NCT of Delhi, Bail Application No.3258/2023, in which it was held that
disclosure statement of a co-accused cannot lead to conviction and where
overall role of the accused is yet to be ascertained, bail should not be denied.
4. The judicial precedent cited on behalf of the accused/applicant cannot
help him. In the present case, it is not a mere disclosure statement. It is a
case where the car from which the contraband was recovered is admittedly
owned by the accused/applicant and there is no material to show that the car
was given on rent to the co-accused Anil. Similarly, it is also not a case
where role of the accused/applicant is yet to be ascertained.
5. The IO submits that since the accused/applicant is absconding, further
investigation through the money transactions into his bank account cannot
be carried out and as such, custodial interrogation is necessary.
BAIL APPLN. 1971/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.05.22 16:59:11 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:22.05.2025
17:25:28
6. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail. The application is dismissed. Pending application also
stands disposed of.
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.22
16:58:54 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MAY 22, 2025/ry
BAIL APPLN. 1971/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
