IA 10/25 in SC No.
432/24
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH
17.10.2025
Present: Sh. Satish Aggarwala, Ld. SPP for CBN.
Sh. Ankur Singh, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused
(through VC)
Vide my separate order of even date, the present
application is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Copy of the order be given dasti as well as be sent to
jail superintendent for supplying the same to accused in jail.
Digitally signed
by ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date: 2025.10.17
[Link] +0530
(Atul Ahlawat)
ASJ/Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi
17.10.2025
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF SH. ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NDPS ACT (SPECIAL JUDGE)
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH
17.10.2025
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the bail application u/s
483 BNSS, 2023 moved on behalf of accused/applicant for grant
of regular bail. Reply filed by the IO.
2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused
that there is no other bail application preferred by the present
applicant/accused which is pending disposal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
or any other Court in the present case FIR.
3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused that
accused/applicant is in JC since 04.06.2024. The
applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present case
and there is no recovery of any contraband effected from his
possession or at his instance. As per the case of the prosecution,
on the basis of secret information, at the pointing out of the secret
informer, the raiding team had apprehended the
applicant/accused and co-accused Praveen Kumar on 04.06.2024,
in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Ghansyam
and Harbhan Singh. The secret information was received at the
office of CBN on 03.06.2024 at about 09:30 hours and the
raiding team reached the spot at about 16:00 hours on the next
Digitally signed
by ATUL
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24 ATUL AHLAWAT
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 2 of 11 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.10.17
[Link] +0530
day i.e. 04.06.2024, yet no efforts were made by the IO to get the
photography and videography of the search and seizure
proceedings conducted. The Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant is
placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in ‘Sukhwinder Singh Vs State’, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4733,
‘Madhuri Chauhan Vs State’, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4735 and
‘Gopal Dangi Vs State’, Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:5175.
4. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused that
alleged recoveries took place in the presence of the independent
witnesses, yet the IO chose not to give the notice U/s 67 of the
Act to the said witnesses and their statements were never
recorded U/s 67 of the Act or even otherwise. Therefore, serious
doubts have been created around the entire search and seizure
proceedings.
5. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused
that the alleged recovery of the banned tablets took place from
one balck color Sky Bag and the IO chose not to seize the said
bag, from which the recoveries were allegedly effected from.
Similarly, as per the case of CBN, there is recovery shown from a
red color American Tourister Bag, which was in the possession of
the co-accused Praveen Kumar, however even the said bag was
not seized by the IO. The prosecution has not offered any
explanation regarding the said lapses. Therefore, there has been
blatant not-compliance of the NDPS Rules, 2022.
6. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused that
formal charges against the applicant/accused are yet to be framed
Digitally signed
by ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.10.17
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24 [Link] +0530
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 3 of 11
and time and again the adjournment is being sought by the CBN
for addressing the arguments on the ground of the non-
availability of the IO. The trial is yet to start and the prosecution
has cited 7 witnesses and the applicant/accused has remained in
custody for over sixteen months. The trial is not going to be
concluded any time soon and therefore, continued incarceration
of the applicant/accused is neither justified nor warranted. The
Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant is placing reliance on the
decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ‘Pascal Ezeigbo @
Prince Vs State’, BA No. 3494/2024 & ‘Obinna Augustin
Ndububa Vs State’, Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:2184.
7. It has been submitted by the Ld. counsel for the
applicant/accused that the applicant/accused is ready to abide
with any condition that this court may impose upon him. The Ld.
Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in “Phundreimayum Yas Khan Vs Stae (GNCTD)”,
Bail Application No. 1383/2022, date of decision 11.01.2023.
8. It is submitted by Ld counsel for applicant/accused that till
date the prosecution has not been able to trace the source of the
recovered medicines. There is no whisper in the complaint
regarding the steps taken to trace out the source of the recovered
medicines. Furthermore, the CBN has not placed on record any
seal issuance register or any other seal handing over document.
Therefore, a shadow of doubt is created on the entire seizure
Digitally signed
proceedings. ATUL
AHLAWAT
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.10.17
[Link]
+0530
9. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 4 of 11
that in the present case there has been non-compliance of
mandatory provision, i.e Section 52 of the NDPS Act, since
grounds of arrest were never supplied to the applicant/accused by
the IO. Only arrest memo was prepared, which are not containing
any grounds of arrest. The fundamental right of the
applicant/accused as enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the
Constitution of India have been repudiated and hence, the arrest
was illegal and non-est. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Pankaj Bansal Vs
UOI & Ors.” (2024) 7 SCC 576; “Prabir Purkayastha Vs State
(NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254; and “Vihaan Kumar vs State
of Haryana”, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.
10. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused
that there the reasons of arrest as allegedly supplied to the
applicant/accused are not complying with the mandatory guidelines
issued in the aforementioned decisions. Furthermore, the grounds of
arrest were not supplied to the family members of the
applicant/accused, which is also a mandatory requirement as per the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir
Purkayashtha (Supra). The personal search memo does not reflect
that the written grounds of arrest were recovered from his
possession.
11. The present application was filed on 11.08.2025 and the
copy of the application was received by Ld. SPP for CBN on
12.08.2025. The matter was taken up for hearing and the IO was
directed to file the reply on 15.09.2025. The IO failed to file the
reply and upon the submissions made by the Ld. SPP for CBN,
one more opportunity was granted to file the reply, at least one
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24 ATUL Date:
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 5 of 11
AHLAWAT 2025.10.17
[Link]
+0530
week prior to the NDOH i.e. 15.10.2025. On 15.10.2025, no
reply to the present application was filed by the CBN and a
request seeking exemption from personal appearance was filed
on behalf of the IO by the Ld. SPP for CBN on the ground that he
was out of Delhi owing to some urgent official work. This Court
could not understand as to why no one else was deputed by the
Department to file the reply on behalf of the IO. No explanation
regarding the conduct of the IO was provided by the Ld. SPP for
CBN. The request seeking personal exemption was not accepted
and since the earlier moved application by the applicant/accused
was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2025, and
there is another application of co-accused pending adjudication,
the reply filed by the IO CBN in the said earlier applications was
considered in the present application as well. Furthermore, the
Ld. SPP for CBN was heard at length in opposition to the present
application.
12. The earlier application moved by the present
applicant/accused was registered as IA No. 1/2025 and same was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 for non-
prosecution. The restoration application moved by the Ld.
Counsel was allowed, however same was also dismissed for non-
prosecution. The Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused had stated at
bar that he had not raised any other ground except for the
grounds raised in the earlier application and the Ld. SPP for CBN
also fairly submitted at bar that since the detailed reply was filed
in the earlier application, same may be considered for the
purpose of the present application as well.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.10.17
[Link]
+0530
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 6 of 11
13. Per contra, it is submitted by the Ld. SPP for CBN duly
assisted by the IO that applicant/accused was caught red handed
with commercial quantity of contra-band/banned medicines. He
could not produce any bill/invoice qua the said controlled
medicines. The present applicant/accused was specifically named
by the secret informer. All the procedural requirements u/s 42 &
50 of the Act were duly complied with. The applicant/accused
was arrested at the pointing out of the secret informer, while he
was talking to the co-accused person. From their respective bags,
commercial quantity of the contraband has been recovered in the
presence of the independent witnesses. The panchnama was duly
prepared and all the procedural formalities were duly completed.
The application U/s 52 A of the NDPS Act was moved before the
Ld. MM on 04.06.2024 and the samples were drawn before the
Ld. MM on 27.08.2024 and the samples were sent to CRCL,
New Delhi for chemical analysis on the very next day i.e.
28.08.2024. The FSL report dated 22.10.2024 was duly received
and the samples were found positive for the tramadol
hydrochloride and Alprazolam respectively. The accused person
had voluntarily disclosed his involvement in the present case and
his statement U/s 67 of the Act was duly recorded. The twin
conditions of section 37 are not satisfied by the
applicant/accused. If released, he may indulge in similar offences
and he may abscond and flee away from the hands of justice.
Therefore, the CBN is strongly opposing the present application.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recently in state of
“Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc.”, Neutral Citation 2025 INSC
979 has discussed all the previous decisions and held that the
Digitally signed
by ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.10.17
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24 [Link] +0530
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 7 of 11
constitutional and statutory framework does mandate that the
arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest, however,
neither provision prescribes a specific form, or insists upon written
communication in every case. The judicial precedents of the
Hon’ble Apex Court have clarified that the substantial compliance
with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice
is shown. Both the decisions in Vihaan Kumar (Supra) and
Kessireddy (Supra) have clarified that written, individualized
grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.
15. Therefore, this Court is bound by the interpretation of the
law and the earlier decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in the aforementioned decision of Sri Darshan (Supra).
The applicant/accused was duly represented by his Ld. Counsel
before the Ld. Duty MM and thereafter before the Ld. Predecessor
of this Court and yet no objection was raised for the non-supply of
the grounds of arrest, even though the co-accused Praveen Kumar
had duly objected the validity of arrest on the said grounds. No
demonstrable prejudice is shown by the applicant/accused,
therefore, no ground for grant of bail is made out on this aspect of
grounds of arrest.
16. After considering the rival contention of the parties,
considering the facts & circumstances of the present case, the
contra-band which was allegedly recovered during the raid from
the applicant/accused was in red color American Tourister Bag,
however the said bag was never seized by the IO. Furthermore,
the IO did not issue any notice U/s 67 of the Act to the
independent panch witnesses namely Sh. Ghansyam and Sh.
Harbhan Lal and their statements were never recorded. Although,
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24 ATUL AHLAWAT
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 8 of 11 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.10.17
[Link]
+0530
the secret information was received around 30-31 hours prior to
the alleged apprehension, recovery and seizure, yet the said
proceedings were neither photographed nor videographed.
Therefore, a shadow of doubt is created upon the said
proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in ‘Bantu v. State (NCT of Delhi)’, 2024
SCC OnLine Del 4671. The applicant/accused has remained in
custody for over 16 months and trial is yet to begin, since the
charges against the applicant/accused have not been framed. The
confessional statement of the applicant/accused and the co-
accused have no evidentiary value. Reliance is placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Tofan Singh
v. The State of Tamil Nadu’, (2021) 4 SCC 1. Furthermore, the
bank transactions in itself is not incriminating piece of evidence,
since the said bank entries are not connected with any person
linked with the offence in question. The recovery was made from
a busy public area during the peak hours when the market was
open and yet no videography/photography as certainly raised
serious doubts over the very fulcrum of the case. The matter of
recovery is a matter of trial, there is no justification for the
absence of photography or videography. Therefore, the
applicant/accused has been able to satisfy the test of section 37 of
the Act. Reliance is placed upon the receiving of Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in ‘Bantu Vs State of NCT of Delhi’, 2024
OnLine Del 4671 and Pascal (supra) and Gopal Dangi (supra).
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the present
applicant/accused has made out his case for grant of regular bail
to him. Hence, the applicant/accused Gurjeet Singh is
admitted to regular bail on following conditions :- Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.10.17
[Link]
+0530
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 9 of 11
(i) On furnishing of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with
two local sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction
of this Court.
(ii) He shall not leave the country without the permission
of this Court and he shall deposit his passport with this
Court (if not already done).
(iii) He shall not try to tamper the evidence or hamper the
trial or try to influence the remaining witnesses, in any
manner and shall not indulge in any act or omission that
would prejudice the proceedings in the present case, in
any manner whatsoever.
(iv) He shall furnish his present and permanent address
with supporting documents along with an
affidavit/undertaking to inform any change thereof
without delay to the SHO/IO concerned and this Court
(no later than 3 days of the said change).
(v) He shall attend the trial without any single default.
(vi) He shall mark his attendance with the local PS on
every first Monday of the Calendar Month, till the trial is
pending.
17. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any expression
or opinion on the merits of the case.
18. The application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 moved on
behalf of applicant/accused Gurjeet Singh for grant of regular
bail is accordingly disposed of as allowed.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.10.17
[Link]
+0530
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 10 of 11
19. Needless to say, that nothing expressed herein shall have
any effect on the merits of the case.
20. Copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail
for necessary intimation to the applicant/accused.
21. Application is disposed of accordingly.
22. Copy of the order be given dasti as well as be sent to jail
superintendent for supplying the same to accused in jail.
Digitally signed
by ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date: 2025.10.17
[Link] +0530
(ATUL AHLAWAT)
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)/
PHC/NEW DELHI/17.10.2025
IA 10/25 in SC No. 432/24
CBN VS GURJEET SINGH Page no. 11 of 11
