Akash Bisht v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. By way of the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) the petitioner seeks the grant of Regular Bail in FIR No.229/2024 dated 16.11.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 20,25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Crime Branch.

2. As per the prosecution, an intelligence input was received by ASI Sanjeev Kumar, stationed at Hauz Khas, Delhi, on 16.11.2024. At approximately 2:00 AM, an informant approached ASI Sanjeev Kumar with information that one Akash Bisht (petitioner), a resident of Surat, Gujarat, was habitually engaged in procuring charas from Himachal Pradesh and supplying it across different locations, including Delhi. The informant disclosed that on the said date, Akash would be traveling to Delhi via the Singhu Border between 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM in a white Skoda car bearing registration number GJ-05-RQ-0047, and would subsequently proceed to Surat, Gujarat. It was further intimated that the charas would be concealed within the vehicle.

3. Upon receiving the tip-off, ASI Sanjeev Kumar recorded the secret information on a plain sheet of paper and proceeded to interrogate the informant to verify its reliability. Thereafter, at 2:20 AM, he contacted Inspector Robin Tyagi telephonically and communicated the intelligence. Inspector Tyagi, after cross-verifying the information with the informant over the phone, escalated the matter to ACP/ARSC, Sh. Arvind Kumar, who directed that immediate legal action be taken.

4. The secret information was duly recorded in Daily Diary No. 2 at 3:10 AM, in compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. A Raiding team, equipped with an I.O. Bag, Field Testing Kit, Official Seal "ARSC CRIME 2", Laptop, Printer, UPS, and Electronic Weighing Machine, navigated through Pushta Road, Ring Road ISBT, Majnu Ka Tila, Makbara Bypass, and GT Karnal Road, and reached Singhu Border at 4:45 AM. Efforts were made to enlist the assistance of public witnesses near ISBT Kashmiri Gate and Bypass GT Karnal Road, but none consented to participate, citing personal constraints.

5. A barricade was set up at GT Karnal Road, Singhu Border. At approximately 6:00 AM, a white Skoda car bearing registration number GJ-05-RQ-0047 was observed approaching from the Haryana side, however, the vehicle did not stop upon the signal given by the raiding party to halt and instead accelerated towards Delhi. The car was intercepted at the red light near Mahendra Park Gurudwara, Jahangirpuri Metro Station, Delhi.

6. The driver of the car, later identified as the petitioner, and the passenger, co-accused Chelpon Bisht, were signalled to exit the vehicle. The raiding party introduced themselves and enquired about their identities.

7. In accordance with procedural requirements and the presence of a female accused, Woman Head Constable Uma Chaudhary was summoned to the scene. Notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were duly served upon both accused persons, apprising them of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Both accused declined the option and recorded their refusal in writing.

8. A search of both individuals was conducted as per law; however, no contraband was recovered from their persons. Consequently, the vehicle was taken to the Ring Road Skoda Workshop for a detailed inspection. During the search, 539.[5] grams of charas was allegedly recovered from the car, concealed within the subwoofer in the trunk and the headrest of the driver's seat. The contraband was seized, video graphed as per Section 105 of the BNSS, and sealed using the official seal "ARSC CRIME 2".

9. The case was registered as FIR No. 229/2024 under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act at PS Crime Branch. The case property was counter-sealed by SHO/PS Crime Branch and deposited in the Malkhana of PS Crime Branch under Section 55 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was formally arrested, and co-accused Chelpon Bisht was also taken into custody with the requisite permission from the Ld. Duty MM under Section 43(5) of the BNSS. The FSL Report, received on 10.12.2024, confirmed the recovered substance to be charas.

10. The petitioner moved a bail application before the learned ASJ, NDPS on 22.02.2025, which came to be dismissed, compelling the petitioner to file the present petition.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case involves an intermediate quantity and therefore, the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply to the present case. He places reliance on the following decisions:  Soyab vs State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Appln.2626/2022  Mahesh vs State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Appln.161/2025  Chhalimudin vs State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Appln.3017/2024  Chand Bala Kinnar vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Bail Appln. 4431/2024  Sunil vs the State of NCT of Delhi Bail Appln. 495/2022

12. The learned counsel submits that the Charge in the present case has not been framed and the petitioner has been incarcerated for a period of about 6 months. Further, the petitioner is having clean antecedents and the Jail Conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory. In light of these circumstances, the bail application be allowed.

13. Opposing the bail application, the learned APP for the state submitted that the Charge has not yet been framed, thus, it is premature to consider the bail application of the petitioner.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State and perused the record, this Court, at the outset, may note that the learned APP has conceded to the fact the quantity of Charas allegedly recovered in the present case is an intermediate quantity.

15. From the decisions cited by the petitioner, it is evident that in a case involving intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply. Further, the nominal roll also reveals that the petitioner is not involved in any other cases and the jail conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory. The prosecution, during the course of arguments, did not dispute that the trial is yet to commence and that there is no immediate prospect of its conclusion in the near future.