The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Suddhi in a case involving an alleged recovery of 32.230 kg of charas, after the State conceded that grounds of arrest had not been provided. The Court applied the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) and also relied on bail already granted to a co-accused.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused arrested in October 2023 in a commercial-quantity NDPS case, holding that failure to provide grounds of arrest vitiated his arrest [Suddhi v. The State NCT of Delhi].
Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order on November 3, 2026, in BAIL APPLN. 2025/2026. The order records at paragraph 23 that, in response to a pointed question, the Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that no ground of arrest had been provided to the petitioner.
The prosecution case, as recorded in the order, concerns an alleged interstate drug syndicate supplying contraband from Nepal. Police alleged recovery of 32.230 kg of charas in 15 packets when Suddhi was apprehended on October 19, 2023. The criminal trial remains at the prosecution-evidence stage.
The dispute over the applicable date
Suddhi’s counsel sought bail on the ground that arrest grounds were not supplied and claimed parity with co-accused Pahalman Budha Magar, who had obtained bail on January 21, 2026 in BAIL APPLN. 4034/2025.
The State argued that the requirement relied upon by the petitioner applied only from November 6, 2025, the date of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. It pointed out that Suddhi had been arrested earlier.
The High Court did not accept that submission. In paragraphs 13–17, it applied Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement. It noted that Suddhi’s arrest followed the October 3, 2023 decision in Pankaj Bansal and treated the present NDPS case as falling within the scope of those authorities concerning special enactments.
The Court distinguished the State’s reliance on Mihir Rajesh Shah, explaining that it addressed arrests across offences under the general criminal-law framework. The reasoning here is the High Court’s application of the earlier authorities to Suddhi’s particular arrest.
Constitutional safeguard and Section 37
The judge acknowledged that the alleged recovery was a commercial quantity and discussed Section 37’s stringent bail conditions. But the issue before the Court was the failure to provide arrest grounds, rather than an assessment clearing the accused of the prosecution allegations.
Paragraph 20 describes Article 22(1) as “a substantive constitutional safeguard and not a procedural formality.” The Court also relied on the earlier co-accused’s bail decision, which held that Section 37 could not override the constitutional guarantee in the circumstances considered there.
Bail conditions; trial remains pending
Suddhi must furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety of the same amount. He must report to the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer in the first week of every month unless the Special Court grants leave, and attend every trial hearing.
The order also imposes conditions concerning his residence and operational mobile number, prohibits interference with prosecution witnesses or evidence, and requires him not to commit an offence during the proceedings.
Paragraph 27 expressly confines the observations to the bail application. They are not an opinion on the merits and must not influence the trial. The grant of bail therefore does not amount to an acquittal or a finding that the alleged recovery did not occur.
Case: Suddhi v. The State NCT of Delhi
Case number: BAIL APPLN. 2025/2026
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Decision date: November 3, 2026
FIR: 266/2023, PS Special Cell, Trans Yamuna Range, New Delhi; Sections 20, 25 and 29 NDPS Act
Outcome: Regular bail granted subject to conditions; trial pending.
