Regular bail application by an accused from whom 280 grams of heroin, a commercial quantity, was recovered in a sting operation. Citing Section 37 NDPS Act twin conditions, CDR analysis linking accused, FSL report, and absence of parity with a co-accused arrested on disclosure statements, the court dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RANJAN SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, Mr. Hemant Kumar, Mr. Puneet Singh, Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, and Mr. Sahil Ahuja, Advocates versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with SI Naresh Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( Oral )
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1736/2025
Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Da te:2 4.09.2025 20:12:54
would be coming near the overhead tank at Delhi University Road to deliver Heroin to his associate Ranjan Singh (the present applicant). After obtaining permission from senior officers, a raiding team was constituted. On reaching the spot, efforts were made to join public witnesses, but none agreed. At about 12:55 PM, one person carrying a yellow cloth bag had arrived from the Bonta Park side, followed shortly by another person from the Mall Road side. The informer had identified them as Safiulla and the applicant Ranjan Singh. As alleged, Safiulla was seen handing over a red cloth bag to the applicant, whereupon both were apprehended by the police team. They had disclosed their identities as Safiulla S/o Rasul and Ranjan Singh S/o Hans Raj Singh, both residents of District Aara, Bihar. Notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act were served, informing them of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, which they had declined. Nevertheless, ACP Prashant Chaudhary, Sub-Division Sarai Rohilla, was called to the spot at about 2:25 PM. In his presence, a search was conducted. From Safiulla‟s yellow bag, a white polythene containing 320 grams of Heroin was recovered (marked “A”). From the red bag in possession of the applicant Ranjan Singh, a yellow polythene containing 280 grams of Heroin was recovered (marked “B”). The contraband was sealed and seized, and the present FIR was thereafter registered.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1736/2025 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Da te:2 4.09.2025 20:12:54
Page 2 of 7
was called at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery. It is also argued that the alleged recovery has neither been videographed or photographed which should have been done if no independent witness was available. It is further contended that the applicant/accused was never informed of the grounds of arrest and no notice under Section 52 of NDPS Act was served upon him. It is argued that the present applicant has no connection with the sale or purchase of any narcotic or psychotropic substance with co-accused Safiulla, and prosecution has failed to establish any link between the alleged recovered contraband and the applicant herein. It is also stated that the applicant has clean antecedents and there is no FIR against him except the present one. It is stated that there are 20 witnesses in the present case and none of the witnesses have been examined till date, as even charges have not been framed and thus, the trial will take substantial time to conclude. The learned counsel also points out that co-accused Dharmender Yadav has been granted regular bail by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It is thus prayed that the applicant be granted regular bail.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1736/2025
Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Da te:2 4.09.2025 20:12:54
bail application be dismissed, also considering the twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act.
“14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable grounds" used in
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1736/2025
Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Da te:2 4.09.2025 20:12:54
clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.”
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1736/2025
Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Da te:2 4.09.2025 20:12:54
was present before the Court and was represented by the legal aid counsel. Further remand orders also repeatedly mention about recovery of 600 grams of heroin (commercial quantity) in this case. Thus, prima facie, it cannot be held that the applicant herein was not made aware as to why and on what ground he had been arrested in this case. This Court‟s attention has also been drawn to the judgment dated 14.08.2025 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan: 2025 INSC 979 wherein it has been held as under:
“20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.
20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail…”
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1736/2025 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Da te:2 4.09.2025 20:12:54
Page 6 of 7
this case, this Court notes that as evident from order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 10378/2025 , no recovery had been effected from the co-accused Dharmender and he had been arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement of the present applicant and co-accused Safiulla; whereas from the present applicant Ranjan, recovery of commercial quantity of Heroin has been effected. Thus, no case for grant of bail on grounds of parity is made out.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2025/ns
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Da te:2 4.09.2025 20:12:54
BAIL APPLN. 1736/2025
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail can be granted where commercial quantity of heroin was recovered from the applicant and the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act apply
Whether non-communication of grounds of arrest warranted bail despite notices under Section 50 NDPS Act and remand records
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit AggarwalRelied on¶7
2022 SCC Online SC 891 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Prateek ShuklaRelied on¶8
(2021) 5 SCC 430 · Who else cites this
State v. Lokesh ChadhaRelied on¶8
(2021) 5 SCC 724 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. Sri DarshanRelied on¶9
2025 INSC 979 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjan Singh
State of NCT of Delhi
Swarana Kanta Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
