No recovery from him, and no sufficient material linking him to the seized contraband: on that record, the Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a pharmaceutical-packaging supplier named in a case over the alleged recovery of about 32 kg of Alprazolam tablets from other accused, and declined to apply the Section 37 NDPS bail bar.
New Delhi: A co-accused’s disclosure and telephone contact relied on by the prosecution did not amount to sufficient material implicating Abhishek alias Abhishek Dhiman, the Delhi High Court has found in granting him anticipatory bail [Abhishek @ Abhishek Dhiman v. State of NCT of Delhi].
Allowing his application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on October 30, 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna let the investigation continue. Her observations, the Court stated expressly, are tentative and will not govern subsequent proceedings on their merits.
Why the recovery record mattered
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order note that no contraband had been recovered from Dhiman, at his instance or from his premises. His name had come up through the disclosure of co-accused, from whose possession the contraband was recovered.
The prosecution also relied on call-detail records showing telephone contact with co-accused. Addressing that in paragraph 9, the Court said that such contact, by itself, could not be a ground to incriminate him on the material before it.
Bail granted to a co-accused where there had been no recovery also weighed with the Court. It found no material on the record sufficient to implicate Dhiman, and noted his clean antecedents and his participation in the investigation.
The seizure, the FIR and the foil
The order records that a police team apprehended two men on January 29, 2026, acting on information about an alleged supply of illegal medicines. About 32 kg of Alprazolam tablets, packaging material, rubber stamps and documents were allegedly recovered. The FIR was registered at the Crime Branch police station under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Other accused were apprehended later in the investigation. They allegedly disclosed that they had procured Alprazolam-printed aluminium foil from Dhiman, whose earlier anticipatory-bail application had been rejected by the Special Judge on May 2, 2026.
What each side urged
For Dhiman, counsel argued that he printed packaging material for pharmaceutical companies, that no contraband had been recovered from him and that other accused had secured bail. The State opposed the plea, saying custodial interrogation was needed to investigate his activities, including the supply of packaging material to different companies.
Section 37 and the applicant’s alleged role
Justice Pushkarna said in paragraph 12 that it was difficult to conclude that Dhiman was directly involved with the total quantity of contraband seized. On that assessment, the Court held that he could not be subjected to the rigours or bar contemplated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The ruling turns on the evidence concerning this applicant. He is not acquitted and the investigation is not closed; paragraph 19 expressly leaves subsequent proceedings to be decided on their own merits.
Terms of the protection from arrest
If he is arrested, Dhiman is to be released on a bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the same amount, to the trial court’s satisfaction, the Court directed.
Conditions follow: he must ordinarily reside at the address stated in the proceedings and obtain the concerned court’s permission before leaving it; surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer; join the investigation when called; and provide all mobile numbers, keeping them operational. He must also refrain from criminal activity, contacting prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Case Title: Abhishek @ Abhishek Dhiman v. State of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3801/2026; CRL.M.A. 28199/2026 and 28201/2026
CNR: DLHC010430792026
Court and Bench: Delhi High Court; Justice Mini Pushkarna
Date of Decision: October 30, 2026
Status: Anticipatory-bail application allowed with conditions; investigation may continue; findings expressly tentative.