Delhi High Court grants regular bail in Tramadol case, holding co-accused disclosures alone are insufficient to deny liberty

A Single-Judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Sunil Kumar challenging his custody in FIR No. 296/2025 arising from alleged recovery of a commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride and offences under Sections 22/25 of the NDPS Act. The petition sought regular bail after the trial court rejected an earlier application.

The Court allowed the bail application subject to conditions and observed that the prosecution’s case rested largely on disclosure statements of co-accused and ancillary material that did not independently establish the applicant’s complicity. The Court found that the applicant was not named in the FIR, no recovery was effected from him or his warehouse, and the chargesheet remained unfiled at the interim stage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “As per settled position of law in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, a disclosure statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act before an officer empowered under Sections 42 and 53 of the Act, cannot, by itself, form the basis of conviction. At best, such a statement may be looked into for the limited purpose of lending assurance to other independent and admissible evidence and cannot be treated as the foundational basis for establishing guilt.” The judgment further noted that “it is an admitted position herein that the present applicant is not named in the FIR, nor has any recovery been effected either at the instance of the present applicant or from the warehouse owned by him,” and that call detail records by themselves were “not, per se, sufficient to establish complicity.”

Background
The prosecution alleged that on 07.10.2025 secret information led to a raid at the residence of Mohd. Abid where 270 packets (200 tablets each) of Tramadol Treken-100 were recovered, aggregating 54,000 tablets weighing about 14.472 kg. Abid purportedly disclosed procurement from Javed Khan, who in turn named Sunil Kumar as the source. A subsequent search of the applicant’s warehouse on 01.11.2025 yielded no contraband, and Sunil Kumar was arrested on 02.11.2025. The trial court refused bail on 02.12.2025.

Counsel for the applicant, led by Senior Advocate Shri Abhijat, argued that there was no admissible material linking the recovered consignment to Sunil Kumar, that entries in a warehouse register were not conclusive proof of possession, and that the prosecution relied solely on co-accused disclosures and CDRs. Reliance was placed on authorities holding that mere contact or CDR connectivity did not establish conspiracy or conscious possession under the NDPS Act. The State, represented by Mr. Satish Kumar, APP, contended that the quantity recovered was a “commercial quantity” attracting the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and stressed register entries showing receipt of forty boxes with thirty-two unaccounted as corroboration of the applicant’s involvement. The State also relied on the applicant’s past involvement in an excise-related FIR to argue risk of reoffending.

The High Court applied settled precedent, including Tofan Singh, and took the view that disclosure statements could only lend assurance when supported by independent admissible evidence. Given the absence of recovery from the applicant or his premises, the preliminary stage of investigation and non-filing of the chargesheet, the Court found that the twin statutory requirements under Section 37 (to the extent invoked) were not satisfied to deny bail. The Court granted regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and one surety of the like amount subject to conditions including restriction on leaving the NCT of Delhi without permission, surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, maintenance of mobile connectivity and monthly reporting to the Investigating Officer, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or contacting prosecution witnesses. The application was disposed of with the observation that remarks on merits were limited to the bail context and would not constitute final adjudication.

Case Details:
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 4882/2025
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Abhijat, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Ms. Pallavi Garg, Mr. Dhruv Chaudhry, Mr. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. Vijit Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Satish Kumar, APP; Ms. Upasna Bakshi, Advocate; SI Daizy Dagar, PS Crime Branch.