Only 54 grams of one alleged 712-gram recovery contained diacetylmorphine, and the FSL identified none in the 300 grams police attributed to the other accused, the Delhi High Court recorded while granting regular bail to Afsana and Narender in an NDPS case. Section 37’s restrictions were held inapplicable on the facts before it. The criminal trial remains pending.
New Delhi: Two bail pleas arising from the same alleged heroin-supply case were decided on the strength of forensic reports. Justice Mini Pushkarna passed separate orders on November 3, 2026, both concerning FIR No. 590/2025 under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act [Afsana v. State of NCT of Delhi through PS Bhalswa Dairy; Narender v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.].
The State’s objection
Opposing bail, the prosecution relied on the alleged recoveries and the time the applicants had spent in custody. It also argued that environmental conditions might have degraded the heroin.
The Court nevertheless proceeded on the forensic findings recorded in the orders.
What the FSL reports showed
In Afsana’s case, police alleged a 300-gram heroin recovery. Paragraph 10 of her order records that the FSL identified other constituents, including morphine and codeine, without diacetylmorphine, the chemical identified as heroin. Paragraph 14 held Section 37’s rigours inapplicable in her case.
Narender’s order dealt with an alleged 712-gram recovery. Paragraph 9 recorded that only 54 grams of the recovered substance contained diacetylmorphine. The Court treated that as an intermediate quantity and, in paragraph 12, held Section 37’s restrictions inapplicable.
Precedents and the stage of the trial
Both orders referred to Aditya Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine All 625, and Dharmender v. The State, decided on December 23, 2020. Afsana’s order additionally relied on Taslima Alias Putti v. State NCT of Delhi, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 605.
Investigation was complete and chargesheets had been filed, the Court noted, yet none of the 23 prosecution witnesses had been examined. It also took into account satisfactory jail conduct and bail already granted to another co-accused.
Each applicant must furnish a Rs. 50,000 bond with one surety of the same amount, attend hearings and comply with conditions concerning residence, telephone availability and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
These are bail orders, not acquittals. Paragraph 21 of Afsana’s order and paragraph 20 of Narender’s order expressly confine the observations to bail and preserve the trial’s independent assessment.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Date: November 3, 2026
Afsana: BAIL APPLN. 3403/2026; 2026:DHC:9801
Narender: BAIL APPLN. 4050/2026; 2026:DHC:9802
Outcome: Regular bail granted in separate orders; trial pending.