Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without substantial progress in trial proceedings violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court granted bail to five petitioners arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, observing that nearly two years had passed without the framing of charges. The Court directed that the petitioners be released on bail, subject to conditions. However, the bail applications of two other petitioners were rejected in view of the nature and quantity of narcotics recovered and the potential role of the accused in a larger drug trafficking network. The Court clarified that all observations were confined to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the case.

The judgment addresses seven bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by accused persons charged under various provisions of the NDPS Act in NCB Case No. DZU/NCD/CR-04/2023. The petitioners were alleged to be part of a network ordering and distributing LSD blots procured through darknet marketplaces, specifically the so-called “Zambada Cartel,” using cryptocurrency.

Also Read: “No Fault Can Be Found with the Order of the Competent Authority”: Supreme Court Upholds Deemed Conveyance for Flat Purchasers, Confirms Perpetual Lease Rights of Appellant

The petitioners included Vaibhav Yadav, Arnav Dhankar, Nishant Rawat, Jithin Cherian, Avtar Singh, Pritesh Agarwal, and Yash Gupta. Of these, bail was granted to five petitioners Vaibhav Yadav, Arnav Dhankar, Nishant Rawat, Avtar Singh, and Pritesh Agarwal while bail was denied to Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta.

Vaibhav Yadav was arrested on 28.04.2023 after allegedly receiving a parcel containing 50 LSD blots at the DTDC courier office in Okhla. The NCB claimed that co-accused Arnav Dhankar, in a Section 67 statement, identified Vaibhav as a partner in ordering the drugs and disclosed that money was transferred by Vaibhav to be converted into bitcoin for purchasing LSD. Statements, transaction details, and digital evidence such as Instagram handles and tracking IDs were cited against him.

Arnav Dhankar, a law student at NLU Kolkata, allegedly placed orders for LSD on the darknet and shared delivery tracking details with Vaibhav Yadav. Arnav's own statement under Section 67 NDPS Act disclosed their joint involvement. He claimed to have placed two LSD orders using bitcoin and used Vaibhav's college address for delivery.

Nishant Rawat was alleged to have used the Wickr Me app to order LSD. A mobile phone allegedly used for communication with the darknet vendor was seized. His statement under Section 67 was cited, in which he confessed to ordering LSD through Zambada Cartel. However, the defense submitted that there were no recoveries pursuant to the statement, and no forensic evidence linked the chats to him. The charges had not yet been framed and trial was pending.

Avtar Singh was arrested following a search at his residence on 19.07.2023, where 2 LSD blots were allegedly recovered under his mattress. The NCB claimed that he transferred cryptocurrency to co-accused Naveen Fogat. CCTV footage and a cryptocurrency receipt were presented as corroborative material. The petitioner challenged the timing of his arrest, pointing to discrepancies in the Godown Register and questioning the legitimacy of his alleged confession under Section 67.

The petition pertaining to Pritesh Agarwal noted that although he was not caught with any physical contraband, he was allegedly involved through digital communications. There was no direct recovery from his possession. The defense emphasized procedural lapses and the lack of any physical evidence directly linking him to the seized contraband. The bail was granted taking into account custody length, delay in trial, and lack of recovery.

Jithin Cherian’s bail was denied. He was linked to a parcel allegedly containing 500 LSD blots (8.34 grams, commercial quantity), recovered from a consignment addressed to a co-accused. Statements of co-accused and chats retrieved from phones allegedly indicated Jithin's involvement. The Court noted that digital evidence and WhatsApp conversations supported the charge, and that the quantity recovered attracted the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Yash Gupta was named as the recipient of another parcel which allegedly contained 50 LSD blots. Though the actual seizure from his parcel was not clearly demonstrated during proceedings, he was linked through a Section 67 statement and tracking IDs. The Court found that there was sufficient prima facie material and denied him bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and recovery attributed to the parcels associated with him.

Across the petitions, counsel for the accused highlighted prolonged incarceration, pendency of framing of charges, and the complexity of the case involving 28 parcels, digital evidence, and 35 witnesses. It was argued that the forensic analysis was incomplete, that many procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act and NDPS Rules (2022) had been violated — including irregularities in sampling, storage, and certification under Section 52A — and that the accused had spent nearly two years in custody with no reasonable timeline for conclusion of trial.

On the other hand, the NCB submitted that all procedural steps had been followed, including proper sealing, sampling, and magistrate certification. Digital evidence like payment records, chats, and CCTV footage were used to link the accused to the LSD trafficking network. The agency argued that releasing the accused would hamper the ongoing investigation, particularly in a case involving international darknet transactions and cryptocurrency.

The Court commenced its examination by upholding the fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, noting that pre-trial detention cannot override these constitutional safeguards indefinitely.

"The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that the rights of a speedy trial of an accused are paramount and in case the Courts are unable to guarantee a speedy trial, the benefit of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be extended."

Citing judicial precedents including Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), Ankur Chaudhary v. State of MP, and others, the Court stated:

"The common thread in all the aforementioned judgments is that Constitutional Courts are required to safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused as guaranteed by Article 21. While special statutes impose strict conditions for granting bail, they should not be used as a means to detain the accused indefinitely without a reasonable prospect of a swift trial."

Addressing the interplay between Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Article 21, the Court explained: "The twin test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must give in to the primacy of Article 21."

The Court noted that in the present matter, the petitioners had undergone incarceration ranging between 1 year 9 months and 1 year 11 months, and yet the charges had not been framed:

"In the present case, there are 3 chargesheets and as of today at least 35 witnesses. Till 31.01.2025, the charges had not yet been framed. All the petitioners have undergone incarceration for a period of almost 2 years."

The psychological and social consequences of prolonged incarceration were also highlighted. Relying on observations from Mohd. Muslim, the Court noted: "The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes... There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime."

In applying these principles, the Court reasoned: "While deciding bail petitions under the stringent provisions of NDPS Act, a fine balance has to be achieved between Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Fundamental Rights which are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution."

Regarding Avtar Singh, the Court specifically observed that there was no conclusive material connecting him to the consignment beyond the physical recovery: "There is recovery of 02 LSD blots which is an intermediate quantity. Additionally, there is no incriminating material to show that Avtar Singh was the sender of the parcels."

On Jithin Cherian, bail was declined. The Court referred to the volume of LSD blots recovered: "The parcel linked to the petitioner contained 500 blots which is more than 75 times the beginning of the threshold of the commercial quantity."

In relation to Yash Gupta, the Court recorded:

"The parcel is addressed in the name of the petitioner, the courier receipt bears the name of the petitioner, the mobile phone of the petitioner shows various images of contraband substance... The petitioner has been in custody for a period of one year and to state that there is a delay in trial is premature."

The Court held: "Since the petitioners are being granted bail on the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution, I am not commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, as it may prejudice the case of either of the parties."

It concluded that: "There is no hard and fast formula as to what is the minimum period which is to be considered as substantial period undergone, however, keeping in view that the trial will take considerable time to conclude..."

The Court, having considered the prolonged period of incarceration, pendency of charge framing, and the number of witnesses, granted regular bail to five petitioners: Vaibhav Yadav (Bail Appln. 1362/2024), Arnav Dhankar (Bail Appln. 2409/2024), Nishant Rawat (Bail Appln. 3353/2024), Avtar Singh (Bail Appln. 4831/2024), and Pritesh Aggarwal (Bail Appln. 1863/2024).

Justice Jasmeet Singh stated: “In view of continued incarceration for almost 2 years and in view of the fact there is no reasonable chances of the trial concluding in the near future, I am inclined to allow the petitions and enlarge the petitioners on bail.”

The Court clarified: “Since the petitioners are being granted bail on the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution, I am not commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, as it may prejudice the case of either of the parties.”

The following conditions of bail were imposed:

The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000 each, along with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. They shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the court and, if in possession of a passport, shall surrender the same before the trial court. The petitioners are required to provide their active mobile phone numbers to the Investigating Officer (IO) and ensure that the devices remain operational and switched on at all times. Additionally, they must furnish their permanent residential addresses to the IO and promptly inform the IO of any change in address. The petitioners shall not indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or likely to prejudice the ongoing trial. They are further directed to cooperate with the investigation whenever called upon and to attend all court proceedings as required. Lastly, they shall not attempt to contact, influence, or intimidate any prosecution witnesses, nor shall they tamper with the evidence in any manner.

In contrast, bail was rejected for two petitioners:

Bail Appln. 4498/2024 – Jithin Cherian

The Court noted: “The parcel linked to the petitioner contained 500 blots which is more than 75 times of the beginning of the threshold of the commercial quantity.”

“Granting bail to the petitioner at this stage may severely hamper investigation to ascertain big operators of this cartel.”

“Thus, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the present petitioner... and this bail petition is dismissed.”

Also Read: They were denied their liberty, dignity and reputation: Kerala High Court directs State to act on compensation report | High time for implementing legal framework for wrongful prosecution

Bail Appln. 64/2025 – Yash Gupta

The Court found the evidence and digital trail substantial:

“The recovery made is of a commercial quantity, therefore the twin conditions given under Section 37 NDPS must be satisfied by the petitioner.”

“There are averments and documents to show that earlier couriers were received by the petitioner... this Court is unable to give a finding that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as charged.”

“Thus, I am not inclined to enlarge the benefit of bail to the petitioner... and this bail petition is dismissed.”

The Court concluded: “The observations made herein shall not tantamount to an opinion formed on merits and demerits of the case and are only for the purpose of deciding this bail petition.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Narender Hooda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Mr. Yuvraj, Mr. Vikram Hegde, Mr. Harsh Jain, Mr. Rohit Dandriyal, Mr. Siddharth Nair

For the Respondent (Narcotics Control Bureau): Mr. Arun Khatri, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sahil Khurana, Ms. Shelly Dixit, Ms. Anushka Bhalla

Case Title: Vaibhav Yadav & Ors. vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2796
Case Number: Bail Appln. 1362/2024 & Connected Matters
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

[Read/Download order]