Mohamed Mudashshir Vs Narcotic Control Bureau — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2026)

Mohamed Mudashshir Vs Narcotic Control Bureau — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to Trial Court satisfaction and conditions (i)-(v): no travel abroad without prior permission/surrender of passport; intimation of change of address/contact details; monthly appearance before IO at NCB office; regular attendance before Trial Court; no contact with complainant/prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Mohamed Mudashshir, is entitled to regular bail in case No. VIII/70/DZU/2022 under Sections 8(c)/22(c)/23(c)/29 NDPS Act, considering that no recovery was effected from him, his alleged role is confined to booking the parcel, the case largely rests on Section 67 disclosure statements, the directing co-accused has been granted bail and discharged, and he has been incarcerated for about three years.

Court's answer

No recovery of any narcotic or psychotropic substance was effected from the possession of the applicant or at his instance; the role attributed to him is confined to the alleged booking of the parcel on the directions of co-accused persons, and the case against him is largely based on disclosure statements of co-accused persons.

Ratio / Principle

Parity weighed in favour of the applicant: co-accused Mohd. Nafees, on whose directions the applicant allegedly booked the parcel and who handed it over, had already been granted bail by the learned Special Judge, NDPS (order dated 29.11.2023) and has since been discharged (order dated 19.05.2025).

Key takeaways

The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 05.02.2023, incarcerated for about 03 years; there is nothing on record to suggest the trial is likely to conclude in the near future, and the record reflects satisfactory jail conduct.ratio¶34
Regular bail granted to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge and conditions: no departure from India without prior permission and surrender of passport if held; prompt intimation of any change of residential address/contact details to the Court and IO/SHO; monthly appearance before the IO at the NCB office; regular appearance before the Trial Court unless exempted; and no communication/contact with the complainant or prosecution witnesses nor tampering with evidence.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma), order dated 13.01.2026 in Bail Appln. 1980/2025: regular bail granted to Mohamed Mudashshir, arrested 05.02.2023 in NDPS case No. VIII/70/DZU/2022 (PS Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi; Sections 8(c)/22(c)/23(c)/29 NDPS Act), arising from interception on 30.09.2022 of a DHL parcel containing 2000 Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets (Ol-Tram 100 mg; calculated weight 670 grams). The Court noted: (i) no recovery of any narcotic or psychotropic substance from the applicant's possession or at his instance; (ii) his role was confined to allegedly booking the parcel on the directions of co-accused persons, the case against him resting largely on Section 67 disclosure statements; (iii) co-accused Mohd. Nafees, who allegedly directed the booking and handed over the parcel, was granted bail by the learned Special Judge, NDPS on 29.11.2023 and discharged on 19.05.2025; and (iv) the applicant had been in judicial custody for about three years with no indication of early conclusion of trial and satisfactory jail conduct. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions including surrender of passport/no foreign travel without permission, intimation of address changes, monthly reporting at the NCB office, regular trial attendance, and no contact with the complainant/prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence. The Court expressly reserved: nothing in the order is an expression of opinion on the merits.