Dismissed¶30

Chibuzor v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC2 Apr 2026BAIL APPLN./1289/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; BAIL APPLN. 1289/2026 (& CRL.M.A. 10105/2026); Justice Girish Kathpalia; decision 02.04.2026; FIR No. 578/2022 P.S. Vikaspuri; Section 21 NDPS Act; Section 14 Foreigners Act; 502 grams heroin, more than double commercial quantity; twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act not satisfied; bail-stage standard: only broad contours of evidence examined; raid authorized by concerned ACP after Sub Inspector verified secret informer; bail application dismissed; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of bail, the court cannot minutely examine the evidence on record; it is only the broad contours of the evidence that have to be kept in mind. ¶22

Chibuzor Vs the State of NCT of Delhi — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/applicant, prosecuted in FIR No. 578/2022 (P.S. Vikaspuri) under Section 21 NDPS Act and Section 14 Foreigners Act after recovery of 502 grams heroin (stated to be much more than even double the commercial quantity), is entitled to regular bail, having regard to the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

None of the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant would satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; there has to be argument and material before the bail court giving reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of bail, the court cannot minutely examine the evidence on record; it is only the broad contours of the evidence that have to be kept in mind.

¶22

Key takeaways

On the showing of the FIR, the Head Constable who received the secret information produced the informer before the Sub Inspector, who satisfied himself after speaking with the informer and shared the information with the concerned ACP; it was the concerned ACP who authorized the raid.ratio¶22
In the court's considered opinion, the case set up by the accused/applicant fails at the anvil of the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 NDPS Act, and the bail application is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail sought by the accused (Chibuzor) in FIR No. 578/2022, P.S. Vikaspuri, for offences under Section 21 NDPS Act & Section 14 Foreigners Act, with 502 grams heroin stated to have been recovered from the bag carried by him, was dismissed by Justice Girish Kathpalia on 02.04.2026. The court held that at the bail stage only the broad contours of the evidence are examined; that on the FIR showing the Head Constable who received the secret information produced the informer before the Sub Inspector, who verified the information and shared it with the concerned ACP, and it was the ACP who authorized the raid; and that none of the accused's contentions (grounds of arrest not verbally explained, contradictions in trial testimony, doubtful chain of custody, alleged incompetence of the raiding Head Constable) satisfied the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act, which require reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Accompanying application CRL.M.A. 10105/2026 stands disposed of.

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 02.04.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 1289/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10105/2026

¶5

CHIBUZOR .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Chandra Shekhar.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 578/2022 of Police Station Vikaspuri for offence under Section 21 NDPS Act & Section 14 Foreigners Act.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Chandra Shekhar.

¶13

Broadly speaking, according to prosecution case, on the basis of secret information, a trap was laid by police and the accused/applicant was apprehended and after completion of procedural formalities, from bag

¶14

BAIL APPLN. 1289/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 3 pages

¶16

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.04.02 18:04:14 -07'00'

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 18:08:56

¶19

carried by the accused/applicant, 502 grams heroin was recovered.

¶20

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that grounds of arrest were not verbally explained to the accused/applicant. It is also contended that testimony of witnesses examined during trial reflect a number of contradictions, which show that the prosecution case is not truthful. It is also contended that the chain of custody of the contraband is doubtful. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also contends that the Head Constable, who received the secret information as per FIR, was not competent to conduct the raid, therefore, the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail.

¶21

Learned APP strongly opposes the bail application on the ground that the quantity of heroin recovered from the accused/applicant was much more than even double the commercial quantity, consequently, the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act come into play.

¶22

It is trite that at the stage of bail, the court cannot minutely examine the evidence on record. It is only broad contours of the evidence that have to be kept in mind. The FIR clearly shows that the Head Constable, after receiving the secret information, produced the informer before the Sub Inspector, who satisfied himself after speaking with the secret informer and then shared the information with the concerned ACP. It is the concerned ACP, who authorized the raid.

¶23

None of the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant

¶24

BAIL APPLN. 1289/2026

¶25

Page 2 of 3 pages

¶26

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 18:08:56

¶29

would satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. There has to be an argument and material before the bail court, which can satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶30

In my considered opinion, the case set up by the accused/applicant in the present case fails at the anvil of twin conditions laid down under Section 37 NDPS Act, therefore, the bail application is dismissed. Accompanying application stands disposed of.

¶31

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant. Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶32

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 GIRISH 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155 KATHPALIA 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.04.02 18:03:51 -07'00'

¶33

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶34

APRIL 2, 2026/ ry

¶35

BAIL APPLN. 1289/2026

¶36

Page 3 of 3 pages

¶37

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.04.2026 18:08:56

Chibuzor v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chibuzor v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anju Sharma Vs the State (N.C.T. Govt. of Delhi)

Desalegn Atnafu Abeba Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Atul Tiwari Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Vijay Arora Vs State & Anr.

Nitin Kaushik Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Rahul Vs State NCT of Delhi