Dismissed¶¶29

Shiv Narayan Jha v. Ncb

Delhi HC9 Jul 2026BAIL APPLN./1209/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail dismissed; Proclaimed Offender; Section 82 Cr.P.C.; NCB; Alprazolam tablets; Tramadol capsules; commercial quantity; psychotropic substances; e-way bill; S.V. Logistics; M/s Maa Kali Enterprises; M/s Shree Shyam Drug Agency; Dilshad Garden; Khoda Ghaziabad; custodial interrogation; larger conspiracy; Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh SLP(Crl.) 13123/2024; Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 INSC 202; Shiv Narayan Jha; Madhu Jain J; Delhi High Court; BAIL APPLN. 1209/2026.

What did the court decide?

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the commercial quantity involved, the petitioner's conduct in not joining the investigation and his having been declared a Proclaimed Offender, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. ¶¶9

Shiv Narayan Jha Vs Ncb — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether an applicant declared a Proclaimed Offender may still have an anticipatory bail application considered on its merits, i.e., whether the proclamation alone warrants rejection of the application. +1 more

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

¶¶9

Key takeaways

No ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail; the present application is dismissed.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi HC (Madhu Jain, J.), BAIL APPLN. 1209/2026, order dated 09.07.2026 — Anticipatory bail application of Shiv Narayan Jha before the NCB dismissed; no ground made out. Prosecution case records commercial-quantity recoveries of Alprazolam tablets (9,990 g on 25.10.2025 near Dilshad Garden, Delhi; 95.880 kg on 29.10.2025 outside M/s Shree Shyam Drug Agency, Khoda, Ghaziabad; 39,249 tablets/7,194 g on 01.12.2025 at said premises) along with 14,424 Tramadol capsules (9,607 g) and five Tramadol injections (01.12.2025). Petitioner, claiming a valid drug licence and GST registration, contended lawful sales to M/s Maa Kali Enterprises with each invoice below ₹50,000/- obviating e-way bills; the NCB countered that S.V. Logistics disowned the transport documents as never issued, that no operational office existed at the disclosed address, that the petitioner is also wanted in a Punjab case, ignored repeated notices, was declared a Proclaimed Offender, and that custodial interrogation was necessary. Counsel had relied on Asha Dubey (SLP(Crl.) No. 13123/2024) and Srikant Upadhyay (2024 INSC 202) to urge that a declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is not an absolute bar to anticipatory bail; the Court, weighing the gravity of allegations, the commercial quantity and the petitioner's conduct, held no ground made out and dismissed the application.

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1209/2026

¶4

SHIV NARAYAN JHA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Siddharth Saxena, Adv. (through VC) versus

¶6

NCB .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Khatri SSC, Ms. Shelly Dixit and Mr. Pranavjeet Singh, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 09.07.2026

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present application is maintainable notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been declared a Proclaimed Offender. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 13123/2024 , titled Asha Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh., the relevant paragraphs as reproduced under:-

¶12

“8. Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail .

¶13

9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued . Suffice it is to state that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, on the condition that the appellant shall cooperate with the further investigation. However, liberty is also given to the respondents to seek cancellation of bail that has been granted, in the event of a violation of the conditions which are to be imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any perceived

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 14/07/2026 at 11:09:10

¶16

threats against the witnesses.”

¶17

He further relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr , 2024 INSC 202 the relevant paragraphs are reproduced under:-

¶18

“24. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that merely because the petitioner has been declared a Proclaimed Offender, the present application cannot be rejected on that ground alone and the facts and circumstances of the present case deserve independent consideration.

¶20

Perusal of the record reveals that, as per the prosecution case, 9,990 grams of Alprazolam tablets were recovered near SD TVS, G.T. Road, Dilshad Garden, Delhi on 25.10.2025. Subsequently, on 29.10.2025, 95.880 kilograms of Alprazolam tablets were recovered from outside the premises of

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 14/07/2026 at 11:09:10

¶23

M/s Shree Shyam Drug Agency, Khoda, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Further, on 01.12.2025, 14,424 Tramadol capsules (weighing 9,607 grams), 39,249 Alprazolam tablets (weighing 7,194 grams) and five Tramadol injections were recovered from the said premises. The recoveries are of commercial quantity.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a holder of a valid drug licence and GST registration. It is submitted that the medicines were lawfully sold to M/s Maa Kali Enterprises and, since the value of each invoice was below ₹50,000/-, generation of an e-way bill was not mandatory.

¶25

Per contra , learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that the investigation has revealed serious discrepancies in the documents relied upon by the petitioner. It is submitted that enquiries conducted from S.V. Logistics revealed that no such consignments were ever transported by it for M/s Maa Kali Enterprises, Patna.

¶26

He further submits that the transporter/S.V. logistics has categorically stated that the transport documents relied upon by the petitioner are not genuine and were never issued by them. It is also submitted that no operational office of S.V. Logistics was found at the address disclosed by the petitioner. 8. As per the status report filed by the respondent, the petitioner is also wanted in a case registered in the State of Punjab and has not joined the investigation therein. In the present case also, there has been recovery of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances from the premises of the petitioner. Despite repeated notices issued by the investigating agency, the petitioner has failed to join the investigation and has been declared a Proclaimed Offender. The respondent further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 14/07/2026 at 11:09:10

¶29

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the commercial quantity involved, the conduct of the petitioner in not joining the investigation and having been declared a Proclaimed Offender, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The present application is dismissed. 11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith

¶30

MADHU JAIN, J

¶31

JULY 9, 2026/ prg/ P

¶32

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 14/07/2026 at 11:09:10

Shiv Narayan Jha v. Ncb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Narayan Jha v. Ncb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Tarun Jain Vs Smt Neena Jain and Ors.

Aakash Sachdeva Vs State (Govt of Nct) & Anr.

Balram@Ballar Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sakil Ansari & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pankaj Narula Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Ors.

Harsh Mehra and Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.