State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi Vs Deepa Singh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2025)

State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi Vs Deepa Singh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders dated 13.06.2025 granting anticipatory bail to Deepa Singh and Anuradha @ Chiku quashed; the State's request for custodial interrogation upheld as justified and imperative; petitions disposed of along with pending applications.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the Sessions Court (ASJ, North West-Rohini) granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents were sustainable, in view of the material gathered during investigation and the State's request for custodial interrogation. +3 more

Court's answer

Framework applied by this Court: bail once granted should not ordinarily be cancelled unless there are strong and cogent reasons of misuse or subversion of the administration of justice; conversely, where an order granting bail is passed without proper appreciation of material evidence or on an erroneous understanding of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice, it is liable to be set aside (drawing on Deepak Yadav and Vipan Kumar).

Ratio / Principle

The principles governing grant of anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail are materially distinct from those applicable to post-arrest (regular) bail; the principle of parity cannot be invoked mechanically across these different procedural stages; anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be sparingly granted where co-operation and absence of flight risk are demonstrated.

Key takeaways

Amit's regular bail cannot, by any measure, form the basis for extending anticipatory bail to the Respondents: Amit was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation enabling vital information and critical recoveries, whereas the Respondents persistently evaded arrest despite Non-Bailable Warrants, frustrating investigation; their continuous evasion and non-cooperation militates against anticipatory bail; the Sessions Court's approach reflects misappreciation warranting interference.ratio¶86
The Sessions Court exercised its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction on three grounds — intermediate-quantity recovery from Amit; absence of recovery from the Respondents; absence of direct evidence implicating them — and these conclusions suffer from fundamental fallacies.ratio¶85

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SANJEEV NARULA, J.), 14.07.2025 — CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 (with CRL.M.A. 18342/2025 & 18347/2025): State petitions under S. 483(3) BNSS 2023 (formerly S. 439(2) Cr.P.C) challenging ASJ North West-Rohini orders of 13.06.2025 (Bail Appls. 1191/2025 & 1192/2025) granting anticipatory bail to sisters Deepa Singh and Anuradha @ Chiku, implicated in FIR No. 186/2025 (Ss. 21(c)/22(B)/29 NDPS Act; S. 111 BNS 2023), P.S. Sultanpuri — QUASHED. Holdings: (i) parity with co-accused Amit's regular bail (intermediate-quantity seizure; charges framed 24.05.2025; bail 26.05.2025) misplaced — pre-arrest and post-arrest bail governed by materially distinct principles and Amit's bail followed arrest and custodial interrogation, whereas the Respondents evaded arrest despite Non-Bailable Warrants; (ii) absence of seizure from the Respondents (absent at the raid) neither determinative nor dispositive of culpability; (iii) unexplained Kotak credits — approx. Rs. 71,00,000/- (Anuradha, 08.01.2023–15.04.2025), approx. Rs. 52,00,000/- (account opened as 'Ankush Tukaramji Bhowate' on Anuradha's PAN, Kusum nominee, 22.02.2023–29.11.2024), approx. Rs. 1.5 crore (Deepa Singh, 17.04.2023–20.03.2025) — form an integral incriminating circumstantial chain pointing to possible laundering/layering, making custodial interrogation necessary; the Sessions Court's disregard thereof legally untenable; (iv) Shreya Jha (2007:DHC:601) clearly distinguished — rendered in a framing-of-charge context, inapplicable to investigative-stage anticipatory-bail standards; (v) WhatsApp/voicenote material ('Samar Bhai') and Lekhraj recordings naming Deepa Singh on quality-control/replacement logistics prima facie establish structured co-ordination and substantive, direct involvement; (vi) intermediate-quantity recovery from one co-accused, by itself, insufficient ground to refuse custodial interrogation amid ongoing investigation; (vii) special consideration for women under proviso S. 437 Cr.P.C acknowledged yet overridden in the peculiar facts; erased CCTV DVR flagged as fulfilling S. 238 BNS ingredients (obiter). Observations expressly not to affect trial merits; petitions disposed of with pending applications.

$~20 & 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18342/2025 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. Inspector Ritesh and ASI Ritesh, Anti Narcotics, Square Outer Distt, P.S. Sultanpuri. versus DEEPA SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh Jaiswal, Mr. Pradeep Chaturvedi and Mr. Gyan Ranjan Kashyap, Advocates. + CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18347/2025 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. Inspector Ritesh and ASI Ritesh, Anti Narcotics, Square Outer Distt, P.S. Sultanpuri. versus

ANURADHA @ CHIKU .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh Jaiswal, Mr. Pradeep Chaturvedi and Mr. Gyan Ranjan Kashyap, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R % 14.07.2025

The present petitions filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 1 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ ) impugns separate orders dated 13^th June, 2025² in BAIL APPLN. 1191/2025 and BAIL APPLN. 1192/2025 passed by ASJ, North West Rohini Court, granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents. The said decisions have been passed in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 186/2025 registered under Sections 21(c)/22(B)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at P.S. Sultanpuri.

In compliance with the directions of the Court, reply on behalf of the Respondents handed over across the Board, is taken on record.

Considering that the reasoning given in the impugned orders for granting pre-arrest bail is identical in both the petitions and that the grounds urged by both sides are also common, it is considered appropriate to decide the instant petitions by way of a common order.

FACTUAL MATRIX

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

4.1. The Respondents in the present petitions, Anuradha @ Chiku and Deepa Singh, are sisters who stand implicated in the afore-mentioned FIR, along with their brother, Amit (co-accused), and their mother, Kusum (coaccused). On 10^th March, 2025, confidential information was received by SI Ankur that Amit, along with his mother Kusum, was engaged in operating a narcotics business, employing workers to sell heroin on their behalf. The informant further disclosed that Amit and Kusum had secured their residence at E-4/13, Sultanpuri, Delhi, with metal gates and CCTV

1 “Cr.P.C”

2 “the impugned orders”

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 2 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

surveillance. It was also reported that Amit would be travelling in his vehicle from Mangolpuri Flyover to his residence in Sultanpuri between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM, carrying heroin. Acting on this intelligence, a raiding party was constituted and the suspected vehicle was intercepted near Mangolpuri Flyover. The driver, introducing himself as Ajay and identifying as Amit’s brother, confirmed that Amit was present at his residence and offered to lead the police team there. At around 6:00 PM, the police team reached E-4/13, Sultanpuri, where Amit was found. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him, however, he declined to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Upon conducting a search of his person and clothes, no narcotics were recovered. A subsequent search of the premises led to the recovery of 11 packets of heroin weighing 383.53 grams including packaging, which amounted to 352.46 grams net weight. Additionally, 10 strips of Tramadol tablets and certain indigenous Ayurvedic medicines were also recovered; the total weight of the Tramadol capsules was 47.09 grams. During the search, besides Amit, three other individuals, namely Ajayjeet, Lekhraj @ Gannu, and a woman named Shivani who were also present were searched on site. Thereafter, Amit was apprehended, the present FIR was registered and investigation commenced. 4.2 During the course of investigation, disclosure statement of Amit, was recorded. He confessed that from the proceeds of the sale of narcotics, his mother, Kusum, had acquired properties bearing Nos. E-4/13 and E-4/12, Sultanpuri. He further admitted that the narcotics were distributed by himself, his mother and his sisters. The investigation revealed that the Respondents, along with Kusum, assisted Amit in operating a drug syndicate. Amit stated that the Respondents actively facilitated the

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 3 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

trafficking and concealment of narcotic substances and, together with the coaccused Kusum, benefited from the proceeds derived from the drug syndicate.

4.3 Amit disclosed that a Scorpio (DL8CBA4642) was purchased by his brother-in-law, a black Toyota Fortuner (ML10F0001) was purchased by Anuradha, and he himself purchased a Maruti Swift (DL9CBE1701). He further stated that he owned the property bearing No. E-4/16, Sultanpuri, while the ground floor of the property at E-4/57, Sultanpuri, was rented from one Moolchand for INR 3,00,000/-.

4.4 Pursuant to his disclosure, keys and registration certificates for a bike (DL8SCS5084) and the Maruti Swift (DL8CBE1701) were recovered. Additionally, cash amounting to INR 13,10,435/- and 69 grams of gold, along with other jewellery, were recovered from a safe located at property No. E-4/57, Sultanpuri. At property No. E-4/13, Sultanpuri, cash totalling INR 14,353/- and jewellery items were recovered from a safe stated to be Deepa’s. In light of these findings, notices were issued to the Respondents under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

4.5. As the Respondents failed to co-operate with the investigation and did not join the investigation process, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against them.

4.6. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and by order dated 24^th May, 2025, charges were framed against the accused Amit. Subsequently, by order dated 26^th May, 2025, the Sessions Court granted regular bail to Amit. Relying on the said order, the Respondents moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the impugned orders dated 13^th June, 2025.

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 4 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State, assails the impugned orders on the following grounds:

5.1. The allegations against the Respondents are grave and serious in nature. The Respondents and their family are running a drug syndicate and till now only Amit has been apprehended and Kusum is absconding. Thus, the Respondents’ custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the conspiracy.

5.2. The Sessions Court failed to take into account that Non-Bailable Warrants had been issued against the Respondents. It is well-settled that when warrants for arrest or proclamations have been issued, pre-arrest bail should be granted only in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A person who persistently defies the orders of the Court and continues to abscond is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

5.3. The impugned orders proceed on an erroneous premise that there is no direct evidence against the Respondents. This conclusion overlooks the material unearthed during investigation, including the disclosure statement of Amit, which explicitly attributes an active role to the Respondents and their mother, Kusum, in facilitating the narcotics trade. This statement also led to the recovery of cash and jewellery, purportedly belonging to Deepa, from the premises at E-4/13, Sultanpuri.

5.4. The investigation has revealed substantial deposits in the bank accounts of both Respondents, amounting to several crores of rupees during the period 2023 to 2025. Notably, neither Respondent is engaged in any lawful business activity that could explain such significant inflows. In particular, Anuradha, who is only 23 years old, has no known source of

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 5 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

lawful income. These unexplained financial transactions strongly suggest proceeds of illicit activities and necessitate thorough custodial interrogation, an aspect the Sessions Court completely failed to consider.

5.5. The Sessions Court also overlooked additional incriminating evidence in the form of electronic data, including transcripts and voice recordings retrieved from the mobile phones of co-accused which clearly implicate the Respondents in the alleged offence.

Mr. Rahul Sharma, counsel for Respondents strongly opposes the request made by the State, and submits as follows: 6.1. The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail only after a careful and comprehensive consideration of the material on record. The Court was duly satisfied that no case for custodial interrogation was made out against the Respondents.

6.2. The Respondents have no previous criminal antecedents, nor have they ever been implicated in any offence under the NDPS Act. Their mere familial relationship with the co-accused Amit and Kusum cannot form the sole basis for their implication. Moreover, it is significant that only an intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from Amit, who has already been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 26^th May, 2025.

6.3. The entire conduct of the Respondents in relation to the raid and subsequent registration of the FIR is tainted with procedural irregularities. Pertinently, one of the members of the raiding team was later appointed as the Investigating Officer, which is impermissible in law and undermines the fairness of the investigation. This fact was not disclosed in the chargesheet. The omission casts serious doubt on the integrity of the proceedings.

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 6 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

Therefore, the State’s demand for custodial interrogation appears to be an attempt to cover up these irregularities.

6.4. With respect to the alleged suspicious bank transactions, it is submitted that the majority of these entries pertain to online gaming activities. In any event, the statements of account relied upon by the State do not form part of the chargesheet and hence, cannot be relied upon to justify the demand for custodial interrogation at this stage.

6.5. Reliance is also placed on the freezing order dated 2^nd July, 2025, passed by the competent authority under Section 68F(2) of the NDPS Act, to emphasize that the bank accounts of the Respondents were not even a part of the freezing order.

6.6. There is no direct evidence to implicate the Respondents and entire case of the State rests only on a disclosure statement, which does not have any evidentiary value as it has not led to any recovery.

6.7. The Respondents have consistently demonstrated their willingness to co-operate with the investigation. In fact, following the grant of anticipatory bail, the Respondents expressly communicated their readiness to join the investigation and have called upon the State to facilitate the same. Instead of pursuing this course, the State has chosen to assail the order granting bail through the present petitions.

6.8. It is further argued that the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is firmly entrenched in our constitutional framework safeguarding personal liberty. Mere allegations or perceived involvement cannot justify pre-trial incarceration, especially when there is no demonstrable necessity for custodial interrogation. The Respondents can be effectively confronted with any material, including digital evidence or

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 7 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

banking transactions, during the course of a regular investigation without resorting to their detention.

6.9. Reliance is also placed on the proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C in view of the fact that both the Respondents are women, and a lenient view be taken.

6.10. Reliance is also placed on the judgement in Ms. Shreya Jha v. CBI³ to argue that bail cannot be denied to the Respondents merely because deposits have been made in the accounts of the Respondents.

ANALYSIS

The Court has considered the afore-noted contentions. Before delving into the merits of the rival contentions, it is necessary to reiterate the wellsettled principle that once bail has been granted, it should not ordinarily be cancelled unless there are strong and cogent reasons indicating that the concession of bail has been misused or that the accused has attempted to subvert the administration of justice. The Supreme Court, in Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P .⁴ , has held that bail once granted should not be mechanically cancelled, and cancellation is justified only if there is evidence that the accused has misconducted himself or if new circumstances arise that warrant such a course. Further, in Vipan Kumar v. State of Punjab⁵ it was emphasized that bail may be cancelled where the order granting it is found to be arbitrary, based on irrelevant considerations, or suffering from nonapplication of mind.

At the same time, it is equally well-established that the order granting

3 2007:DHC:601

4 (2022) 8 SCC 559

5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 854

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 8 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

bail must reflect due application of mind to the material on record and the nature and gravity of the accusations. Where the Court finds that the order granting bail has been passed without proper appreciation of material evidence or on an erroneous understanding of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice, such an order is liable to be set aside.

In order to appreciate the rationale adopted by the Sessions Court while concluding that custodial interrogation of the Respondents was not necessary in the present case involving serious narcotics offences, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant excerpt of the impugned orders:

“8. On perusal of the file, it is revealed that the main accused Amit had been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.05.2025. In the bail order of accused Amit, it is stated that finally a case of intermediate quantity was made out and charges were framed for intermediate quantity against the main accused Amit. There is no recovery from the present applicant/accused and the prosecution has not shown any direct evidence to implicate the present applicant and there is no previous involvement of the present applicant. It was submitted by the IO that the account of the applicant has to be verified. As the account is within the knowledge of the IO, the investigation can be conducted in this regard and the same is not a ground to deny bail to the applicant/accused. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the applicant is owner of the premises. Therefore, the present applicant/accused is admitted to anticipatory bail on furnishing of personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with one surety in like amount on following conditions:

a) The applicant is directed to reside at the given address, if there is any change in the address, she is directed to intimate the same to the Investigating Officer;

b) The applicant is directed to report to the concerned Police Station twice in a week i.e. every Tuesday and Friday and shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and an advance intimation of 24 hours be given to the applicant;

c) The applicant is directed to give all her mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and to keep them operational at all times:

d) The applicant directed to attend all the proceedings of the Trial Court through Virtual Court or physically, as the case may be or as per direction of ld. Trial Court.

e) Violation of any of the above conditions by the applicant would result in the immediate cancellation of the bail granted.”

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 9 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

A perusal of the aforesaid extract reveals that the Sessions Court exercised its “extraordinary” discretionary jurisdiction primarily on three grounds: only intermediate quantity was recovered from the main accused Amit; no recovery was effected from the Respondents and no direct evidence was placed on record implicating them. However, these conclusions suffer from fundamental fallacies.

The Sessions Court’s reliance on the principle of parity with coaccused Amit, who was granted regular bail is also erroneous. First, Amit was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation, which allowed the investigating agency to extract vital information and undertake critical recoveries. In stark contrast, the Respondents have persistently evaded arrest, despite the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, thereby frustrating investigation. Second, the principles governing grant of anticipatory (prearrest) bail are materially distinct from those applicable to post-arrest (regular) bail. The principle of parity cannot be invoked mechanically across these different procedural stages. Particularly, anticipatory bail is intended as an extraordinary remedy, to be sparingly granted in exceptional circumstances where the applicant has demonstrated co-operation and absence of flight risk. The Respondents’ continuous evasion and noncooperation militates against these principles. Consequently, the grant of regular bail to Amit cannot, by any measure, form the basis for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Respondents. The Sessions Court’s approach, therefore, reflects a misappreciation of settled legal principles and warrants interference.

It is imperative to note that the issue of recovery from the

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 10 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

Respondents could not have arisen at the stage of the raid, as they were neither present at the premises nor apprehended alongside the other coaccused Amit. Their absence during the raid cannot, by itself, negate their involvement, especially when the allegations pertain to active participation in narcotics syndicate, financial linkages and management of proceeds of crime. Thus, the Sessions Court’s observation regarding absence of recovery is neither determinative nor dispositive of their culpability.

This brings the Court to the critical question of whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that custodial interrogation of the Respondents was not warranted, premised on an alleged “lack of direct evidence” against them. In this regard, the material placed by the State assumes considerable significance. The State has pointed out that the bank account [Account No. xxxxxxx460 at Kotak Mahindra Bank] in the name of Anuradha @ Chiku, has credit entries of approximately INR 71,00,000/from 8^th January, 2023, to 15^th April, 2025. Moreover, another account [Account No. xxxxxxx066 at Kotak Mahindra Bank], opened in the name of “Ankush Tukaramji Bhowate” using Anuradha’s PAN details and having Kusum (the mother) as nominee, contains credits aggregating to INR 52,00,000/- between 22^nd February, 2023 and 29^th November, 2024. Similarly, the bank account [Account No. xxxxxxx256 at Kotak Mahindra Bank] maintained by Deepa Singh shows credit entries totalling approximately INR 1.5 Crores from 17^th April, 2023 to 20^th March, 2025. Significantly, counsel for the Respondents has categorically conceded that neither of the Respondents is engaged in any lawful business activity and there is no GST registration in their names. The explanation offered, that these amounts pertain to “online gaming”, in the opinion of this Court, at

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 11 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

best, is a tenuous and partial justification. Even if certain credits might plausibly be attributed to online gaming, this does not convincingly account for the sheer magnitude, pattern and sources of funds reflected in these accounts. The State has further highlighted that a significant number of these entries consist of cash deposits and UPI transfers, which remain wholly unexplained. While these banking transactions may not, by themselves, constitute “direct evidence” of the offence in a narrow technical sense, they nonetheless form an integral part of the incriminating circumstantial chain. The volume and pattern of these substantial, unexplained cash flows point towards possible laundering or layering of illicit proceeds, and thus call for thorough scrutiny. These suspicious transactions undeniably strengthen the necessity for custodial interrogation to unravel the underlying financial trail and expose the larger conspiracy, if any. It is, therefore, manifest that the Trial Court’s reasoning disregarding these material aspects is legally untenable and cannot be sustained.

The Respondents have sought to rely upon the decision in Shreya Jha to contend that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of deposits reflected in their bank accounts. In Shreya Jha , a co-ordinate Bench of this Court indeed held that the mere presence of monetary deposits in the account of an accused could not, by itself, form sufficient basis to frame charges, particularly when the accused was sought to be implicated solely by virtue of her familial relationship with the primary accused. However, this reliance is entirely misplaced. It must be underscored that the observations in Shreya Jha were made in the context of a challenge to an order framing charge. The issue there was whether a prima facie case existed to proceed to trial, not whether custodial interrogation was warranted at the investigative

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 12 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

stage. The standards applicable to anticipatory bail are materially distinct and far more stringent than those governing discharge or framing of charge, which mandates custodial interrogation to secure evidence. Moreover, in the present case, the bank deposits are not the sole incriminating circumstance but are part of a broader web of financial and circumstantial evidence, including disclosure statements, property recoveries, and unexplained cash flows, which collectively justify deeper investigation. Accordingly, Shreya Jha does not advance the case of the Respondents and stands clearly distinguishable.

At this juncture, the Court also notes the additional material unearthed during the investigation, which includes WhatsApp chat logs retrieved from co-accused Amit’s mobile device and voice recordings recovered from the phone of co-accused Lekhraj @ Gannu. In particular, the voicenotes exchanged between Amit and an individual referred to as ‘Samar Bhai’ reveal that Amit explicitly directed suppliers to collect narcotics from his mother and sisters. The terminology and expressions used in these conversations prima facie indicate a structured and deliberate co-ordination involving the Respondents, rather than any casual or incidental reference. It is pertinent that despite the issuance of notices, Samar has consistently evaded the investigation, further raising concerns regarding the extent of the syndicate’s operations and the Respondents’ involvement therein.

Further, in the voice recordings recovered from Lekhraj @ Gannu’s mobile phone, there are explicit references to Deepa Singh. In these recordings, Deepa is identified as the primary point of contact for resolving complaints related to the poor quality of heroin and for arranging the replacement of defective consignments. Such references, in light of the facts

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 13 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

of the case, prima facie suggest her active participation not merely in ancillary support, but also in operational aspects of the drug distribution network, including quality control, customer grievance redressal and logistical management. Coupled with the financial transactions and cash recoveries already discussed, these materials substantiate a prima facie case indicating the Respondents’ substantive and direct involvement in the illicit trade, necessitating thorough custodial interrogation to unravel the full scope of their activities.

Moving beyond the Respondents’ individual roles, the material gathered during the investigation appears to support the State’s case that the accused persons, including the Respondents, were operating as part of a structured and organized drug syndicate. The Court is apprised that multiple properties, registered in the names of other co-accused, are suspected to be proceeds of criminal activity, and steps have already been taken to freeze these assets. The Respondents are alleged to have knowingly permitted the use of these properties for the storage, trafficking, and concealment of narcotic substances.

Additionally, secure mechanized locks and CCTV surveillance systems have been seized from these properties, including E-4/57 and E- 4/13, Sultanpuri, Delhi. These properties are also equipped with escape routes. The State contends that the manner in which these premises have been structurally modified clearly indicates an intent to obstruct law enforcement operations. This allegation is supported by recovery memos and site inspection reports placed on record.

The State also emphasizes that there has been intentional suppression and destruction of evidence, specifically the DVR of the CCTV system,

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 14 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

initially produced by the defence which was found to have been deliberately erased prior to the raid. This selective deletion of footage indicates an attempt to destroy material evidence which fulfils the ingredients of an offence under Section 238 of BNS.

Viewed holistically, the material placed before the Court indicates the existence of a larger, organised criminal design in which the Respondents appear to be active participants. While the evidentiary value of the material relied upon by the State is a matter to be determined at the stage of trial, the limited question before this Court is whether, in view of the material gathered during investigation warrants denial of the State’s request for custodial interrogation.

In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Sessions Court is not sustainable. The material placed before the Court, as noted above, is sufficiently compelling to justify the State’s request for custodial interrogation. The State seeks to ascertain the supply chain, the source of financial transactions reflected in the Respondents’ bank accounts, their involvement in the narcotics trade and the nature of their association with their mother, Kusum, who, as noted earlier, has a history of involvement in NDPS cases. The State also needs to ascertain the source of the acquisition of properties suspected to have been purchased using drug proceeds and the Respondents’ alleged conscious and active efforts to conceal assets derived from criminal activity. As the investigation in respect of these aspects is ongoing, the fact that the recovery from one of the co-accused is of intermediate quantity, by itself, could not have been a ground sufficient for the Sessions Court to reject the State’s request for custodial interrogation.

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 15 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

As regards the applicability of proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C, the Court is fully conscious of the fact that the present petitions concern two accused who are women, and is equally mindful of the special consideration often extended to women under the criminal justice system. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the State’s request for custodial interrogation is not only justified but imperative for an effective and fair investigation.

In light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned orders dated 13^th June, 2025, granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents, are hereby quashed.

It is clarified that the observations made above are only for the purpose of deciding the State’s challenge to the bail order, and none of the observations shall affect the merits of the case.

Disposed of along with pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J

JULY 14, 2025/ as

CRL.M.C. 4208/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4211/2025 Page 16 of 16

This is a digitally signed order.

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 18/07/2025 at 11:50:51

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the orders of the Sessions Court (ASJ, North West-Rohini) granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents were sustainable, in view of the material gathered during investigation and the State's request for custodial interrogation.¶115
The court held
Framework applied by this Court: bail once granted should not ordinarily be cancelled unless there are strong and cogent reasons of misuse or subversion of the administration of justice; conversely, where an order granting bail is passed without proper appreciation of material evidence or on an erroneous understanding of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice, it is liable to be set aside (drawing on Deepak Yadav and Vipan Kumar).ratio¶74
2.
Whether reliance on the principle of parity with co-accused Amit — who obtained regular bail after arrest, with intermediate-quantity seizure and charges framed — legitimately supported anticipatory bail for the Respondents, particularly given the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants against them.¶86
The court held
The principles governing grant of anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail are materially distinct from those applicable to post-arrest (regular) bail; the principle of parity cannot be invoked mechanically across these different procedural stages; anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be sparingly granted where co-operation and absence of flight risk are demonstrated.ratio¶86
3.
Whether the substantial, largely unexplained bank credits of the Respondents warranted custodial interrogation, and whether the decision in Shreya Jha precluded denial of anticipatory bail on account of deposits in their accounts.¶97
The court held
The unexplained bank credits — approx. INR 71,00,000/- in Anuradha's Kotak account xxxxxxx460 (08.01.2023–15.04.2025); approx. INR 52,00,000/- in account xxxxxxx066 opened as Ankush Tukaramji Bhowate on Anuradha's PAN with Kusum as nominee (22.02.2023–29.11.2024); approx. INR 1.5 crore in Deepa Singh's account xxxxxxx256 (17.04.2023–20.03.2025), substantially cash deposits and UPI transfers, with conceded absence of lawful business/GST registration — though not direct evidence in a narrow technical sense, form an integral part of the incriminating circumstantial chain; the volume and pattern of these substantial, unexplained cash flows point towards possible laundering or layering of illicit proceeds, call for thorough scrutiny, and strengthen the necessity of custodial interrogation to unravel the financial trail and expose the larger conspiracy.ratio¶96
4.
Whether the special consideration applicable to women accused (reliance placed on the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C) precluded the State's request for custodial interrogation.¶120
The court held
While fully conscious of the special consideration often extended to women under the criminal justice system (proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C), in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases the State's request for custodial interrogation is not only justified but imperative for an effective and fair investigation.ratio¶120

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Separate orders dated 13.06.2025 in BAIL APPLN. 1191/2025 and BAIL APPLN. 1192/2025 granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents (Deepa Singh and Anuradha @ Chiku), challenged by the State under Section 483(3) BNSS (formerly Section 439(2) Cr.P.C)¶13
ASJ, North West Rohini Court · 13.06.2025
Prior proceeding
Registration of FIR No. 186/2025 at P.S. Sultanpuri under Sections 21(c)/22(B)/29 NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 111 BNS, 2023, out of which the bail proceedings arise.¶13
Prior proceeding
On 10.03.2025 confidential information received by SI Ankur that Amit, with his mother Kusum, ran a narcotics business employing workers to sell heroin, operating from fortified residence E-4/13, Sultanpuri.¶18
Prior proceeding
Raiding party intercepted the suspected vehicle near Mangolpuri Flyover; driver identifying himself as Ajay, Amit's brother, led police to E-4/13, Sultanpuri, where Amit was found around 6:00 PM.¶24
Prior proceeding
Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act served on Amit; he declined to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; personal search yielded no narcotics.¶24
Prior proceeding
Search of premises E-4/13, Sultanpuri: recovery of 11 packets of heroin, 383.53 grams gross including packaging, 352.46 grams net weight.¶24
Prior proceeding
Amit apprehended; present FIR registered; investigation commenced.¶24
Prior proceeding
Disclosure statement of Amit: Kusum acquired properties E-4/13 and E-4/12, Sultanpuri from narcotics sale proceeds; narcotics distributed by himself, his mother and his sisters; Respondents along with Kusum assisted Amit in operating a drug syndicate.¶24
Prior proceeding
Recoveries pursuant to disclosure: cash INR 13,10,435/- and 69 grams of gold with other jewellery from safe at E-4/57, Sultanpuri.¶30
Prior proceeding
Cash INR 14,353/- and jewellery recovered from a safe at E-4/13, Sultanpuri stated to be Deepa's; Respondents thereafter failed to cooperate and did not join investigation.¶30
Prior proceeding
Notices issued to the Respondents under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in light of the recoveries.¶30
Prior proceeding
Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the Respondents for failure to cooperate and non-joining of investigation.¶31
Prior proceeding
Chargesheet filed on completion of investigation; charges framed against Amit on 24.05.2025 for intermediate quantity (per the bail order of Amit reproduced in the impugned orders).¶76
Prior proceeding
Sessions Court granted regular bail to co-accused Amit vide order dated 26.05.2025.¶76
Prior proceeding
Relying on Amit's bail order, the Respondents applied for anticipatory bail (BAIL APPLN. 1191/2025 and 1192/2025), allowed by the impugned orders dated 13.06.2025.¶32
Prior proceeding
Post-bail development urged by Respondents' counsel: freezing order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the competent authority under Section 68F(2) NDPS Act did not include the Respondents' bank accounts.¶55
Prior proceeding
Investigation finding recited by the Court: credit entries of approx. INR 71,00,000/- in Anuradha @ Chiku's Kotak account xxxxxxx460 (08.01.2023 to 15.04.2025); approx. INR 52,00,000/- in Kotak account xxxxxxx066 opened as 'Ankush Tukaramji Bhowate' using Anuradha's PAN with Kusum as nominee (22.02.2023 to 29.11.2024); approx. INR 1.5 crore in Deepa Singh's Kotak account xxxxxxx256 (17.04.2023 to 20.03.2025); Respondents conceded no lawful business activity and no GST registration.¶93
Prior proceeding
Digital material unearthed: WhatsApp chat logs from co-accused Amit's mobile device and voice recordings from co-accused Lekhraj @ Gannu's phone; voicenotes between Amit and 'Samar Bhai' directing suppliers to collect narcotics from his mother and sisters; recordings referencing Deepa Singh on heroin-quality complaints and consignment replacement.¶102