RAHUL vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10.07.2025 + BAIL APPLN. 1779/2025 RAHUL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. C.M. Sangwan, Advocate versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritesh Kr. Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav, Advocate for the State CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. In pre-lunch session, the matter was passed over as neither the counsel for accused/applicant nor the IO appeared. In this post-lunch session, learned counsel for accused/applicant and the IO have appeared. I have heard learned APP for State and learned counsel for accused/applicant. 2. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 71/2025 of PS Burari for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act. 3. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is recovery of 58.6 grams heroin, which is an intermediate quantity, so bar under Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply. The accused/applicant was arrested on 23.03.2025 and remains in jail since then, though for three days he was granted interim bail after which he surrendered. BAIL APPLN. 1779/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.10 17:45:17 +05'30' Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:10.07.2025 18:16:34 4. On last date, learned APP had alleged that there are Call Detail Records between the accused/applicant and co-accused Simran and voice notes reflecting the complicity of the accused/applicant in the offence. Today in pre-lunch session, the IO did not appear, so matter was passed over awaiting those CDRs and voice notes. Now, the IO has produced the voice notes in a pendrive which is played in court room. The voice notes are completely vague and nothing can be deduced from the same,