Imran Khan v. The State NCT of Delhi

3. Learned APP strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application on the (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR NO. 270/2025 of PS Crime Branch for offence under Section 21 of NDPS Act.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for accused/applicant that presently, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused/applicant. The alleged recovery of contraband on the basis whereof the FIR was registered, was not from the accused/applicant but from one Irfan. It is on the basis of confessional statement of Irfan that the accused/applicant is sought to be booked.

GIRISH KATHPALIA ground that the quantity of the recovered contraband, 2.108 kg heroin was much more than commercial quantity. It is also contended that the accused/applicant was in constant touch with the main accused Irfan, from whom the contraband was recovered. Further, it is contended by learned APP that the accused/applicant falsely denied his relation with Irfan during interrogation. Lastly, it is argued that since the accused/applicant is involved in three more cases of similar nature, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that the accused/applicant is innocent and has been falsely booked, that too, without any incriminating evidence.

5. Of course, the recovery of the contraband is much more than commercial quantity. But that recovery, even according to the prosecution case, is from Irfan and not from the present accused/applicant. The only material collected against the accused/applicant during investigation is that according to Irfan, he received the contraband from the present accused/applicant. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the accused/applicant.

6. As regards the accused/applicant being in contact with Irfan, learned prosecutor produced before me the printouts of Instagram conversation between Irfan and the accused/applicant. But not a single conversation has been pointed out, which would reflect any dealing in any criminal activity between the two of them. Even no such conversation in any coded form has been shown. Learned prosecutor, after going through the said conversation fairly admits that in text conversation there is nothing incriminating. However, learned APP submits that there were also telephone calls between the accused/applicant and Irfan. But admittedly, there is no recording of the said telephonic conversation as well.

7. In other words, even going by the prosecution case, as on date, the only material available with the IO is that Irfan and the accused/applicant are in contact with each other. That cannot be treated as an incriminating evidence. For, such contact can be for any social relations as well.

8. Learned APP on instructions of the IO submits that if the accused/applicant was innocent, he would not have denied any relation with Irfan in the course of interrogation. But even if that aspect is taken, merely because in interrogation, the accused/applicant told a lie (assuming the printouts of Instagram conversation to be genuine), merely for telling a lie during interrogation, the accused/applicant cannot be connected with such a serious crime, that too, to the extent of denying him liberty.

9. In nutshell, currently, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused/applicant. Merely on the basis of a story created by the investigators, liberty cannot be taken away from the accused/applicant. It was also offered during the arguments that if prosecution does not want to arrest the accused/applicant immediately, time may be granted to the investigator to collect appropriate incriminating evidence, but that offer is not acceptable to the investigating officer. st=Delhi,

10. Another aspect is the contention that the accused/applicant is involved in three more cases of similar nature. Admittedly, in all those three cases, the accused/applicant is already on bail and is facing trial. Previous involvement is certainly significant. But merely on the basis of previous involvement, the person cannot be deprived of liberty even in the subsequent cases without any incriminating evidence.

11. Therefore, the application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned and also subject to the condition that the accused/applicant shall join investigation as and when directed in writing by the Investigating Officer. Pending application stands disposed of.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) JANUARY 9, 2026