Md. Mehbub Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

$~1220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- BAIL APPLN. 4384/2025

MD. MEHBUB .....Petitioner Through: Mr. B.P. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bipin Kr. Jha, Mr. Alok Kumar Dwivedi and Ms. Komal Jha, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP for State ASI Pankaj Rajora.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 15.12.2025

¶9

The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS read with Section 528 of BNSS seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 283/2025, under Section 20 of NDPS Act, registered at PS-Ambedkar Nagar, District South, Delhi.

¶10

The case of the prosecution is that when the patrolling team of police reached near the Laxmi Narayan Temple, Samshan Ghat Road, Madan Gir Village, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi, they noticed a man walking towards Shamshan Ghat Road carrying a blue coloured bag in his hand. After noticing the police person in uniform, the said person attempted to flee. However, he was apprehended by the patrolling team. On checking the bag, Ganja was found in the said bag which weighed 11.386 Kg. The said person was identified as Manoj Ram.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2025 at 12:23:50

¶13

During interrogation, co-accused Manoj Ram disclosed he was allured by his associate Mohd. Mehbub (present petitioner), resident of his native village. He further disclosed that they procured Ganja from a person in Nepal with the intention of selling it at higher price in Delhi.

¶14

The CDR analysis was conducted, which led to the arrest of the present petitioner from Sadar Bazar area. However, no recovery was made from the present petitioner.

¶15

Mr. B.P. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is no recovery of contraband made from the petitioner. He submits that even if the recovery made from co-accused Manoj Ram is taken into consideration, the contraband is of intermediate quantity. He further submits that the petitioner does not have any previous involvement.

¶16

Per contra , Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has argued on the lines of status report, a copy of which has been handed over across the bar. The said status report is taken on record. 7. I have heard Mr. B.P. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Srivastava, learned APP for the State. 8. On being queried by the Court, Mr. Srivastava, on instructions from the IO who is present in the Court, fairly states that no recovery was made from the present petitioner. He further concedes that the recovery made from co-accused Manoj Ram is of intermediate quantity. On further being queried by the Court, as to whether there is any previous involvement of the present petitioner, Mr. Srivastava, on instructions from the IO, submits that as per the record there are no previous involvements of the petitioner.

¶17

As there is no recovery made from the present petitioner, and the

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2025 at 12:23:50

¶20

recovery made from co-accused, Manoj Ram is of intermediate quantity, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 will not be applicable.

¶21

It is also not in dispute that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean. 11. The petitioner has already suffered incarceration since 02.06.2025. Further, the presence of petitioner during trial and his availability to undergo sentence, in the event of his conviction could be ensured by putting conditions.

¶22

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/JMFC/Duty JM, further subject to the following conditions:

¶24

a. Petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.

¶25

b. Petitioner shall provide mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and he shall not change the mobile number without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶26

c. Petitioner shall not temper with evidence or communicate with or come in contact with witnesses.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein above are only for the limited purpose of deciding the present bail application, and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

¶28

The application is disposed of.

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2025 at 12:23:50

¶31

Copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.

¶32

Pending applications stand disposed of.

¶33

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶34

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶35

DECEMBER 15, 2025/ jg

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2025 at 12:23:50

Md. Mehbub v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mehbub v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khemo Devi Public School through Its Administrator Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Mohammed Rezwan Vs State NCT of Delhi

Karan Kukreja Vs State (Nct) of Delhi & Anr.

Rahul Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Mohd Ghulam Mustafa @ Gudduraj Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Shri Shankar Shiv Degree College Vs Union of India & Ors.