Delhi High Court: Tinku denied bail, WhatsApp chats cited

The Delhi High Court dismissed Tinku’s regular bail plea on 27 October 2026, finding that WhatsApp chats linked to him provided material beyond statements made by other accused persons in a narcotics case. Justice Girish Kathpalia, in the judgment in Tinku v. Narcotics Control Bureau, held that the circumstances did not satisfy the requirements for bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The court’s reasoning turned on subscriber records and the recovery of two SIM cards from a handset allegedly seized from Tinku. His lawyer had argued that the chats concerned a different person, identified as Manav Bidla. The court found a prima facie connection – a preliminary assessment of the material, rather than a final finding of guilt – between Tinku and the number associated with that name.

The application, BAIL APPLN. 2935/2026, sought regular bail, meaning release from custody while the criminal proceedings continue. According to the judgment, the complaint alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The court recorded that the alleged recoveries involved commercial quantities, bringing the application within Section 37’s additional restrictions on bail.

How the disputed chats reached the court

The prosecution account, summarised in the judgment, began with a raid based on secret information in which 5.103 kg of amphetamine was allegedly recovered. Further raids at different locations allegedly yielded other quantities and types of prohibited drugs from different people. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) accused Tinku of coordinating an international drug-peddling cartel.

At earlier hearings, Tinku’s counsel had maintained that the case against him rested entirely on disclosure statements made by co-accused persons – accounts given by others accused in the same case. The NCB disputed that position, saying it also had WhatsApp conversations between Tinku and other accused persons that explicitly concerned dealings in prohibited drugs.

Those chats had not accompanied the NCB’s earlier status report, the judgment records. The court therefore gave the agency an opportunity to file them. In compliance with that direction, the NCB submitted a detailed status report with documents, and advance copies were supplied to Tinku’s counsel on 1 October 2026.

After that filing, the defence continued to argue that there was no incriminating material connecting Tinku to the alleged offences. Its specific objection was that the WhatsApp printouts related to Manav Bidla, not Tinku, and were therefore irrelevant to his bail application.

The NCB relied on Annexure A-5, containing subscriber identification records, and produced the mobile phone seizure memo before the judge. According to the judgment, the agency used those documents to support its contention that Tinku and Manav Bidla were the same person.

The subscriber records and SIM cards

Justice Kathpalia examined the relationship between the number appearing in the chats and the number recorded for Tinku in his know-your-customer, or KYC, application form. These are records used to identify a subscriber.

The court noted that, although the two numbers differed, Tinku’s KYC form listed the number associated with Manav Bidla as an alternative contact number. That entry was relevant because his counsel had argued that he neither knew Manav Bidla nor had any connection with the number used in the chats.

The judgment also records that, according to material the NCB showed the court, the SIM cards corresponding to both numbers were recovered from the same mobile phone seized from Tinku’s possession. On that basis, the judge reached the preliminary view that Tinku held and used both numbers under the two names.

The court described the chats as “severely incriminating”, stating that they concerned orders for different prohibited drugs and quantities, as well as acknowledgements and payments. It consequently rejected the defence’s premise that the prosecution relied solely on co-accused persons’ statements.

Why Section 37 mattered

Section 37 imposes additional conditions on bail in cases involving commercial quantities. In State of Kerala v. Rajesh, decided on 24 January 2020, the Supreme Court explained that the prosecutor must have an opportunity to oppose release. Where the prosecutor objects, the court must find reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

That Supreme Court judgment supplies background to the statutory test; Justice Kathpalia’s judgment did not cite it. In Tinku’s case, the High Court recorded that the commercial-quantity classification was not disputed and assessed the application under Section 37.

The dismissal did not determine guilt. Justice Kathpalia expressly limited his observations to the competing arguments on bail and directed the trial court to reach an independent view on the evidence placed before it.

The High Court also directed that a copy of its order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent so that the decision could be conveyed to Tinku.