[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mohan Lal Choudhary vs State Through Sho Special Cell on 9 March, 2026
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3276/2025
MOHAN LAL CHOUDHARY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Mr. Narender and
Ms. Neha Ghugtyal, Advocates.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO SPECIAL CELL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, PS
Special Cell.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The applicant/accused seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 154/2023 of
Police Station Special Cell for offence under Section 18 & 29 of the NDPS
Act.
2. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that
on the basis of a secret information, a raiding team was constituted which
intercepted the truck owned and being driven by the accused/applicant and
the said truck was found to contain 41.260 kg of opium, which is a
commercial quantity. According to prosecution, the said contraband was
being transported in his truck by the accused/applicant from Manipur to
BAIL APPLN. 3276/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.09 19:02:51 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:09.03.2026
18:05:51
Delhi. The alleged supplier of the contraband has been granted bail today
itself.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that he is innocent
and has been falsely implicated after letting off the actual culprit. It is
contended that it is not believable that a truck would be driven from
Manipur to Delhi by only single driver, without even a helper. Further, it is
contended that since grounds of arrest were not provided to the
accused/applicant, he deserves bail. Learned counsel for accused/applicant
also contends that there is violation of Section 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act.
Apart from that, it is also contended that delay in trial in itself is a ground in
this case to grant bail.
4. Learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Sanjeev Kumar
strongly opposes bail application on the ground that the Supreme Court held
in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. [SLP(Crl.) Nos. 516-
522 of 2025] that procedural infirmities cannot make inroads into the twin
conditions laid down by Section 27 of NDPS Act for grant of bail. Further, it
is contended by learned APP that grounds of arrest were duly supplied by
accused/applicant by way of copy of application for grant of police custody.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for accused/applicant places reliance on
the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. vs.
The State, CRL. Appeal No. 4505/2025, and contends that the law discussed
in the case of Sri Darshan (supra) operates only in cases of cancellation of
BAIL APPLN. 3276/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569a
f3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.09 19:02:40 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:09.03.2026
18:05:51
bail.
6. So far as the grounds of arrest is concerned, in the case of Ahmed
Mansoor (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that
grounds of arrest must be immediately furnished to the accused in order to
confer legality to the detention. In the present case, learned APP has shown
me the chargesheet including the application for grant of police custody and
order passed by the learned trial court thereon. From the same, it cannot be
inferred that copy of the said application was supplied to the
accused/applicant. Nothing has been produced by prosecution to show
supply of grounds of arrest to the accused/applicant.
7. There is another important aspect, which is similar to the one
discussed in the bail order passed today in favour of co-accused Shatan @
Santosh. In order to show complicity of the accused/applicant, prosecution
relies upon the location of the accused/applicant in Manipur at the time of
dispatch of the contraband, followed by telephonic connectivity between the
two accused persons. But similar to the case of Shatan @ Santosh, in the
present case also, there is nothing to show that the telephone number on the
basis whereof the said two aspects are sought to be established, belonged to
the accused/applicant. As explained through chargesheet by learned counsel
for accused/applicant, he had four mobile phone numbers, none of which
reflects his presence in Manipur.
8. Besides that, I also find substance in the submission that
BAIL APPLN. 3276/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.03.09 19:02:27 -07'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:09.03.2026
18:05:51
transportation of a truck from Manipur to Delhi cannot be by a single driver,
and as per prosecution, no second driver or cleaner or helper was found on
the apprehended truck. On this aspect, contention of learned counsel for
accused/applicant is that the accused/applicant was falsely implicated after
letting off the actual culprits. Of course, on these aspects, the learned trial
court shall take independent view at final stage.
9. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail
application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on
bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.09 19:02:15 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 09, 2026/dr
BAIL APPLN. 3276/2025 Page 4 of 4 pages
