BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010340932026 + BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026 BALJEET KUMAR .....Applicant Through: Mr. R.K. Jha, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. SI Shailendra Tiwari, ER.I/Crime Branch. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 246/2024, dated 02.12.2024, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”].
2.
I have heard Mr. R.K. Jha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Srivastava has handed over a status report in Court, which is taken on record. The prosecution case emerging therefrom is as follows: a) On 01.12.2024, secret information was received regarding the supply of ganja through courier from Visakhapatnam to Delhi.
Acting upon the said information, a raiding team was constituted and the particulars of the consignment were verified from DTDC CourierThis 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 18/09/2026 at 00:37:57 BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026 Page 2 of 7 Company.
It was found that two parcels bearing the same tracking ID No. D-33126877 had been dispatched from Visakhapatnam and were to be delivered at the address of one Vishambar Ram at Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. b) The delivery person, an employee of DTDC Courier Company, contacted the recipient on the mobile number mentioned on the parcels. The recipient informed him that he was out of Delhi and directed him to hand over the parcels to his associates near Tyagi Barat Ghar, Tyagi Market, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. c) Pursuant thereto, two persons arrived at the said location on a scooty, bearing No.
DL-8S-AT-9422 to receive the parcels. One of them produced an Aadhaar Card in the name of Vishambar Ram and received the parcels. Both persons were thereafter apprehended and disclosed their identities as Munip Mahato and the present applicant. d) Upon search of the parcels, ganja was recovered from both. Each parcel was found to contain 29.26 kgs of ganja, resulting in a total recovery of 58.52 kgs.
Consequent upon the recovery, both accused were arrested on 02.12.2024. e) During investigation, both accused disclosed that the consignment had been arranged and dispatched from Visakhapatnam by one Gagan Gaurav @ Munna [hereinafter, “Munna”], a resident of Patna, Bihar. Munip Mahato further disclosed that he was in contact with Munna through WhatsApp and provided his mobile number. Examination of Munip Mahato’s mobile phone allegedly revealed multiple WhatsApp calls and chats between the two. f) The investigation further revealed that Munna had sent, throughThis 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 18/09/2026 at 00:37:57 BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026 Page 3 of 7 WhatsApp, an Aadhaar Card in the name of Vishambar Ram bearing the photograph of the present applicant, which was allegedly used for taking delivery of the parcels. g) Munip Mahato also disclosed that he had met Munna at his residence in Patna and identified him as the person who had arranged the consignment and was operating the drug syndicate with the involvement of other persons.
During the course of investigation, Munna and one Mukesh Kumar were also arrested.
3. Mr. Jha’s principal submission is that the applicant is entitled to parity with co-accused Munip Mahato, who was granted bail by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 07.01.2026. He submits that it was Munip Mahato who was in contact with the alleged supplier of ganja, namely, Munna. Although the applicant’s photograph was used on the Aadhaar Card in the name of Vishambar Ram, who was the addressee of one of the parcels in question, Mr.
Jha submits that the said Aadhaar Card was exchanged between Munip Mahato and Munna. His contention, therefore, is that the applicant had merely accompanied Munip Mahato to collect the parcel and was not otherwise involved in the alleged offence.
4. Mr. Srivastav submits that the learned Sessions Court itself noted the distinction between the role attributed to Munip Mahato and that of the present applicant in the following terms: “Considering the facts of the case and the material available on record, the role assigned to the applicant/accused appears confined to the act of collecting the parcels with the co-accused Baljeet Kumar.
As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged parcels were received by the co-accused Baljeet under his signature. Admittedly, the accused/applicant has neither put his signature nor has given any writing note to the courier staff for the receiving of the alleged parcels. The prosecution version primarily relying upon theThis 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 18/09/2026 at 00:37:57 BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026 Page 4 of 7 confessional statement u/s 67 of the accused/applicant. There are no incriminating call records financial transactions or digital communication linking the accused/applicant with the other co- accused persons with the alleged trafficking network. In the absence of such corroboration and keeping view the settled position of law that confessions u/s 67 are insufficient without supporting evidence, in humble opinion of this court, the benefit of doubt ought to arise in favour of the applicant/accused at this stage.
Accordingly, for the limited purpose of bail there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. Hence, the first requirement of section 37 of NDPS Act is therefore satisfied.” 5. It may also be noted that, apart from Munip Mahato, co-accused Munna was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2025 in BAIL APPLN. 1359/2025. While doing so, this Court noted that the recovery in the present case had been effected from the applicant and Munip Mahato, whereas no recovery had been effected from Munna.
To that extent, therefore, the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing.
6. Turning to the claim of parity with Munip Mahato, in the status report handed over by Mr. Srivastav today, the prosecution has stated that Munip Mahato and the applicant were arrested at the same time, after they arrived at the DTDC office to receive the parcels in question. As regards their respective roles, the status report states as follows: “13.
That during investigation, both accused disclosed that the consignment of Ganja had been sent by one Munna, resident of District Patna, Bihar, who had arranged its dispatch from Visakhapatnam through courier.
14. That accused Munip Mahato disclosed that Munna has sent the parcels from Visakhapatnam and that he was in constant contact with Munna through WhatsApp calls and chats. He disclosed the WhatsApp/mobile number of Munna as 8295594372.
15.
That examination of the mobile phone of co-accused MunipThis 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 18/09/2026 at 00:37:57 BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026 Page 5 of 7 Mahato revealed multiple WhatsApp call logs between him and Co- accused Gagan Gaurav @Munna on the aforesaid number.
It was further revealed that co-accused Gagan Gaurav @Munna has sent an Aadhaar Card through WhatsApp in the name of Vishambar Ram, bearing the photograph of the present applicant/accused Baljeet Kumar, which was used for taking delivery of the parcels. It was also the main ground of dismissal of bail application of present applicant before Ld trial court.
16. That the parcels were booked in the name of Vishambar Ram.
Accused Munip Mahato further disclosed that he had met Munna at his house situated in Patna, Bihar and identified Munna as the kingpin of the drug syndicate, who had involved other persons in operating the said syndicate. He also stated that he could identify the house and village of Munna at Patna.” 7. These facts, in my view, indicate that, although the role attributed to the present applicant is somewhat different from that attributed to Munip Mahato, it cannot be characterised as graver.
Munip Mahato was the person who was in contact with the alleged supplier, Munna. Munip Mahato had also disclosed that he had met Munna at his residence. There is no similar material indicating any contact between the present applicant and Munna. While the applicant’s photograph was used on the Aadhaar Card in the name of Vishambar Ram, which was used for taking delivery of the parcel, the said Aadhaar Card was itself sent by Munna to Munip Mahato.
8.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Munip Mahato, and that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands satisfied. It may also be noted that the Supreme Court, in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 18 SCC 166], has clarified that, at the stage of consideration of a bail application, theThis 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 18/09/2026 at 00:37:57 BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026 Page 6 of 7 satisfaction required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is to be assessed on a prima facie basis and that the Court is not required to return a conclusive finding as to the guilt of the accused.
9.
I am also informed that the applicant has remained in custody for a period of 1 year and 9 months, while only one of the 33 prosecution witnesses has been partly examined. In these circumstances, the expeditious conclusion of the trial appears remote.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the applicant shall be released on bail in the FIR No. 246/2024, dated 02.12.2024, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, subject to furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and subject to the following conditions: a) The applicant shall appear before the Special Court on each date of hearing; b) The applicant shall furnish his permanent address to the Special Court, as also the address at which he shall reside during the pendency of the case.
In the event of any change in his residential address, the applicant shall intimate the Investigating Officer [“IO”] and file an affidavit to that effect before the Special Court; c) The applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the concerned IO/Station House Officer, and shall ensure that the same remains operational at all times. The mobile number shall not be switched off or changed without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of the trial; d) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make anyThis 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 18/09/2026 at 00:37:57 BAIL APPLN. 3008/2026 Page 7 of 7 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever; e) The applicant shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Special Court; f) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the learned Trial Court; g) The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of his release on bail.
11.
The bail application, alongwith pending application, is disposed of in terms of the above.
12. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall neither influence the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 ‘pv’/SD/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 18/09/2026 at 00:37:57