Saqlain Raza Khan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi - Bail Application

India Delhi High Court

Filed March 19th, 2026

Detected March 20th, 2026

Summary

The Delhi High Court heard a bail application for Saqlain Raza Khan, accused under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The case involves the recovery of 80 kg of ganja from a car. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel and the state's APP.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This document details a bail application hearing before the Delhi High Court for Saqlain Raza Khan, who is accused under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution alleges the recovery of 80 kg of ganja from a car occupied by two individuals, with the applicant being the third occupant. The case has been pending since May 2025 and was transferred to the current bench.

Legal professionals representing the applicant and the State presented their arguments. As this is a bail application, the immediate implication is the ongoing legal process for the accused. Further proceedings will determine the outcome of the bail request and the progression of the criminal case. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities based on this filing, but it highlights ongoing enforcement activities related to drug offenses.

Source document (simplified)

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 11, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Saqlain Raza Khan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 March, 2026

$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1998/2025, CRL.M.A. 16274/2025 & CRL.M.A.
16275/2025

                             SAQLAIN RAZA KHAN                                     .....Petitioner
                                                Through:      Mr. Meghan, Advocate.

                                                versus

                             STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                .....Respondent
                                                Through:      Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
                                                              with SI Narender Singh.

                             CORAM:            JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

                      J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1.     The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.76/2024 of
                      PS Crime Branch for offence under [Section 20](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/919170/) / [25](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1089586/) / [29](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1252855/) NDPS Act.

1.1 This bail application came up for the first hearing on 26.05.2025
before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned
before different benches. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications,
this application also was transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned counsel for
accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Narender
BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 1 of 5 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455 Signature Not Verified 69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,

                                                                                KATHPALIA
                                                                                            postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
                                                                                            serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570

Digitally Signed 996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:08:22 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
Singh.

Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that on the basis of secret
                  information, the police party intercepted a car, in which were two occupants,
                  namely Nibash Biswas and Saurabh Singh. On being searched, 80 kg of
                  ganja was recovered from that car. The accused/applicant is registered
                  owner of that car. The role ascribed to the accused/applicant is of a
                  conspirator under [Section 29](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1252855/) NDPS Act and as regards evidence of the
                  alleged conspiracy, the investigator collected material according to which
                  the accused/applicant along with the other two co-accused made three trips
                  to Odisha prior to being apprehended and they stayed in the same hotel.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that there is no
                  sufficient material to convict him. Most significantly, learned counsel for
                  accused/applicant contends that the accused/applicant was never furnished
                  grounds of arrest, which is a serious violation of his constitutional right
                  under [Article 22](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/581566/) of the Constitution of India.

Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Narender Singh opposes the bail
                  application on the ground that the quantity of contraband recovered from the
                  accused/applicant is a commercial quantity, so twin conditions under [Section 37](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496325/) NDPS Act would come into play. As regards supply of grounds
                  of arrest, it is contended by learned APP that the same were supplied
                  through the application filed before the learned trial court for first remand.

BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 2 of 5 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Signature Not Verified GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,

                                                                                    KATHPALIA
                                                                                                postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,

Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
By:DIKSHA RAWAT 01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:08:12 -07'00'

Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46

In the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 INSC 1288, the Supreme Court recapitulated the legal position as regards the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused and held thus:

"24. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), of which, one of us was a
member (B.R. Gavai, J., as he then was), this Court reiterated the
principle laid down in the above judgment, while dealing with
offences under UAPA and held that any individual arrested for
alleged commission of offences under the UAPA or any other offence
for that matter, has both a fundamental and a statutory right to be
informed in writing such grounds of arrest. The Court further held
that a copy of such written grounds must be furnished to the arrested
person at the earliest without any exception observing that the
communication provided under Article 22 and Section 50 of CrPC
1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023)is not a mere procedural
formality but a vital safeguard with the ultimate objective to enable
the arrested person to effectively consult legal aid and be prepared to
raise objections in remand hearing and apply for his/her bail. The
right to life and personal liberty, safeguarded under Articles 20 , 21 and 22 of the Constitution, stands as the paramount fundamental
right. Accordingly, infringement of these constitutional protections
commands rigorous judicial scrutiny and strict enforcement.

It was said that any breach of the constitutional safeguards
provided under Article 22 would vitiate the lawfulness of arrest and
subsequent remand and entitle the arrested person to be set at
liberty...

In conclusion, it is held that:

i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds
of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including
offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);

ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the
arrestee in the language he/she understands;

iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest,
it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing
within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to
production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the

BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 3 of 5 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Signature Not Verified 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45 569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,

KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
Digitally Signed 0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:08:03 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
magistrate.

iv)In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent
remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to
be set free."
(emphasis supplied)

Going by the above cited legal position, there cannot be a dispute that
                  failure to furnish grounds of arrest would vitiate arrest, thereby entitling the
                  accused to bail.

In the present case also, prosecution does not dispute the
                  abovementioned legal position. The stand taken by the prosecution is that
                  grounds of arrest were duly supplied to the accused/applicant by way of the
                  application for first remand filed before the trial court. But neither in the
                  first remand order of the learned trial court nor even in the application for
                  first remand, it is disclosed that copy of the application was furnished to the
                  accused/applicant. There is no endorsement on the ordersheet of the trial
                  court or even the first remand application reflecting that a copy thereof was
                  supplied to the accused/applicant. That being so, it is clear that a
                  constitutional right of the accused/applicant was violated.

So far as the twin conditions under [Section 37](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496325/) NDPS Act are
                  concerned, of course, the statutory requirements cannot make inroads into
                  the same. But in the present situation, it is the constitutional requirement,
                  which stands at a footing much higher than the statutory requirements. It is
                  the constitutional right of an arrested person to be supplied with grounds of
                  arrest in view of the above cited law.

BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 4 of 5 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455 Signature Not Verified 69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,

                                                                                      KATHPALIA
                                                                                                  postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
                                                                                                  serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570

Digitally Signed 996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:07:53 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46

In view of above discussion, the application is allowed and the
                  accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing
                  a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount
                  to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Accompanying applications also stand
                  disposed of.

A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,

                                                                       GIRISH         2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
                                                                                      c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
                                                                                      ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,

                                                                       KATHPALIA
                                                                                      postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
                                                                                      serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
                                                                                      5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
                                                                                      1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
                                                                                      Date: 2026.03.19 18:07:41 -07'00'

                                                                            GIRISH KATHPALIA
                                                                                 (JUDGE)
                      MARCH 19, 2026/dr

                      BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025                                              Page 5 of 5 pages Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Date:19.03.2026 18:09:46