NAFI NAZAR Vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

BAIL APPLN. 1043/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages

$~73

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 12.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010092312026

+ BAIL APPLN. 1043/2026

NAFI NAZAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Kiran Narayanan, Advocate

(through video conferencing).

versus

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Shelly Dixit, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in Crime No.

VIII/77/DZU/2021 dated 17.12.2021 of PS Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi

for offence under Section 8/21(c)/23/29 of NDPS Act.

2. This bail application was earlier pending before coordinate benches of

this Court and was ultimately transferred to this bench for hearing today.

3. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned

counsel for respondent/NCB.

BAIL APPLN. 1043/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages

4. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. On 24.07.2025,

the accused/applicant was apprehended on the basis of LoC by the officials

of Bureau of Immigration at Cochin Airport and was arrested. Earlier, on

07.12.2021, on the basis of a secret information, the NCB recovered a parcel

containing 480 grams charas and 60 grams Methamphetamine from DTDC

office. The said parcel had allegedly been sent by the co-accused

Harikrishan, from whose house further recovery of 145 grams of

Methamphetamine was affected. Thereafter, co-accused Paschal was

arrested on 08.12.2021 and from his residence 60 grams cocaine and 55

grams Methamphetamine was recovered. The arrested accused persons in

their disclosure statements named the present accused/applicant from which

the NCB came to know that the parcel had been booked on directions of the

present accused/applicant. According to the NCB, the illegal drug cartel is

being run by the present accused/applicant as kingpin.

5. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is innocent and

has been in custody since 24.07.2025 without any legally admissible

evidence.

6. Learned counsel for respondent/NCB submits that the

accused/applicant had been absconding, so LoC had to be obtained against

him which led to his arrest at the Cochin Airport. It is further submitted by

learned counsel for NCB that apart from disclosure statements of co-accused

persons, there is also evidence in the form of telephonic connectivity

BAIL APPLN. 1043/2026 Page 3 of 5 pages

between the present accused/applicant and co-accused persons as well as

money transactions. It is submitted by learned counsel for NCB that the

stand taken by the accused/applicant regarding his spice business is an after-

thought, because in his statement made to the NCB, he did not say so.

7. Learned counsel for accused/applicant in rebuttal submits that the

accused/applicant is dealing in business of spices and the money

transactions between him and co-accused, Aslam were only in that

connection. Further, it is explained by learned counsel for accused/applicant

that initially when the complaint was filed by NCB, there was no

involvement of the present accused/applicant, which shows that the case was

fabricated against him at a later stage.

8. So far as the telephonic connectivity is concerned, merely because

call detail records reflect telephone calls between two persons, complicity to

the extent of incrimination cannot be inferred. Admittedly, none of the calls

allegedly exchanged between the present accused/applicant and any of the

co-accused persons was intercepted to ascertain as to what was being spoken

by them.

9. As regards the alleged money transactions, the amounts transacted are

not substantial enough to infer that the same was payment for contraband

purchase or sale. Besides, one wonders as to why the persons dealing in

illegal money would transact through bank, as in the present case.

BAIL APPLN. 1043/2026 Page 4 of 5 pages

10. As mentioned above, the complaint against the co-accused persons

was filed by NCB in the year 2021 after completion of investigation and in

paragraph 95 of the said complaint, the NCB stated that investigation qua

the present accused/applicant is kept open, so supplementary complaint

would be filed. That was the status as on 04.06.2022. The accused/applicant

has placed on record documents reflecting that on 28.04.2022, NCB wrote a

letter to the local unit of NCB at Kochi, calling upon them to verify the

antecedents and address of the present accused/applicant discreetly, in

response to which, the local unit of NCB at Kochi reported that the present

accused/applicant was not residing at the given address and that no case was

registered against him in the local police station. Even thereafter, passport of

the accused/applicant was renewed on 12.09.2023. The LoC was issued on

10.07.2025 and till that day, nothing was done to call the accused/applicant

for joining investigation.

11. Ultimately, the only evidence against the accused/applicant is the

disclosure statement of co-accused persons. To reiterate, nothing

incriminating was recovered from the accused/applicant.

12. Further, the co-accused Paschal also has been granted bail today itself

largely for the reason of snail-paced trial in which during past more than one

year, the NCB could examine only one witness. So far as the present

accused/applicant is concerned, since he was arrested only on 24.07.2025,

even charge is yet to be framed.

BAIL APPLN. 1043/2026 Page 5 of 5 pages

13. Considering the above circumstances, I find no reason to deprive

further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is

allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to

his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

14. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail

Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

15. Of course, none of the above observations shall be read to the

prejudice of either side at the culmination of trial and at that stage, the trial

court shall take an independent view on the basis of evidence adduced.

GIRISH KATHPALIA

(JUDGE)

AUGUST 12, 2026/dr