[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
State Nct Of Delhi vs Asha Kaur on 5 February, 2026
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.02.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1014/2026, CRL.M.A. 3943/2026 & 3942/2026
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Singh, APP for State
with Inspector Vikas, PS Crime
Branch
versus
ASHA KAUR .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The petitioner State seeks cancellation/setting aside of regular bail
granted by the learned trial court to the respondent by order dated
25.09.2025 in case FIR No. 161/2025 of Police Station Crime Branch,
North-West under Section 21/25/29 NDPS Act.
2. Learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Vikas submits that
against order dated 25.09.2025, to the extent of denial of police custody,
State has also filed a revision petition before this Court.
3. Broadly speaking, the circumstances leading to the present
application are as follows. The respondent/accused surrendered before the
CRL.M.C. 1014/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835
d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee
Date: 2026.02.05 17:48:55 -08'00'
trial court of learned Special Judge, NDPS Act and the learned court allowed
her interrogation by the investigating officer in court premises till post lunch
session. Subsequent to her interrogation, the learned trial court took up her
bail application and after hearing both sides, admitted the
respondent/accused to bail subject to certain conditions.
4. Cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused is sought only
on the ground that the bail was wrongly granted. Learned APP for State, in
all fairness, clarifies that the cancellation of bail is not being sought on
account of any supervening circumstance, much less, on any allegation of
misuse of liberty. Learned APP for State submits that the learned trial court
ought not to have granted bail in view of seriousness of the offence and
nascent stage of the investigation.
5. On being called upon to disclose any admissible evidence against the
respondent/accused on the basis whereof she could be deprived of liberty by
the trial court, learned APP for State submits that the evidence is in the form
of confessional statement of son-in-law of the respondent/accused. Further,
it is submitted by learned APP for State that in the course of her
interrogation in the court premises, the respondent/accused after certain
stage refused to answer the queries. Since the respondent/accused was
evasive in her interrogation, she ought not to have been granted bail.
6. So far as the stand taken by the State that during interrogation the
respondent/accused was evasive, I find no merit in the argument. It is the
investigatorial skills of the interrogator, which are important. If the
CRL.M.C. 1014/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48
35d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2
Date: 2026.02.05 17:49:10 -08'00'
interrogator is not skilled, the interrogatee cannot be blamed as being
evasive, much less, for the purposes of bail.
7. Ultimately, there is no incriminating evidence on the basis whereof
liberty of the respondent/accused could be curtailed. Significantly, in the
remand application (copy whereof is Annexure P-6), there is not even a
whisper if any incriminating article has to be recovered from the
respondent/accused. The confessional statement of son-in-law of the
respondent/accused, which was recorded when he was in police custody, did
not lead to any recovery with which the respondent/accused could be
connected.
8. I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the
respondent/accused was admitted to bail subject to a number of conditions
which would ensure that she attends the trial and does not interfere with the
prosecution evidence.
9. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld and the present petition and
the accompanying applications are dismissed.
10. Copy of this order be sent to learned trial court.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af39
62c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b4
0f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.05 17:49:25 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 05, 2026/as
CRL.M.C. 1014/2026 Page 3 of 3 pages
