Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aashish Verma vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
119
119 (4 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-
CRM-M-54358
54358--2025
Aashish Verma
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
Union of India though Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit,
Amritsar
....Respondent
2. CRM-
CRM-M-2983
2983--2026
Varun Kumar
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
Union of India,
India Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar
....Respondent
3. CRM-
CRM-M-1520
1520--2026
Dinesh
.Petitioner
....Petitioner
versus
Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar
....Respondent
4. CRM-
CRM-M-65090
65090--2025
Biram Ram Pooniya @ Veeru
.Petitioner
....Petitioner
versus
Union of India
....Respondent
Date of Decision: February 11, 2026
Date of Uploading: February 12, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate and
1 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 09:17:08 :::
2
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-54358-2025).
Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-2983-2026).
Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-1520-2026).
Mr. A.S. Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-65090-2025).
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor, NCB with
Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate,
Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate,
Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate,
Ms. Sakshi Gautam, Advocate and
Ms. Samriddhi Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
By way of the present common judgment, this Court proceeds to
adjudicate the aforesaid four petitions together in view of the admitted
commonality of factual matrix and congruity of legal issues involved therein,
as fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
For the sake of convenience & brevity, the facts are extracted
CRM–M-54358
from CRM 54358–2025 titled as Aashish Verma versus Union of India
India,,
Unit,, Amritsar.
through Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit
2. Present petitions have been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant
of regular bail to the petitioner(s), in NCB Case No.04 dated 07.02.2025,
registered under Sections 8, 22(c), 25, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘), at Police Station
Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, Amritsar.
2 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
3
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
3. As per case setup by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the complaint
in question involves recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, details,
whereof reads thus:
Sr. Date of Seizure Place of Seizure Drug seized
No.
1. 07.02.2025 At Peer Baba Dargaah, 5,000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride
Thathiya Near Petrol
Pump, Jandiala Tarn
Taran Road, Amritsar
2. 08/09.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, 16,860 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride
Plot No. – 27, Sector-7,
IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar.
3. 09.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, 187 bottles of Barcadin (with codeine) 100ml
Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, and 140 bottles of CSP (with codeine) 100 ml.
IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar.
4. 15.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, 80.720 Kgs of Tramadol Hydrochloride loose
Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, tablets
IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar.
5. 17 to J R Pharmaceuticals, 8,89,064 bottles of Codenie Phosphate Cough
28.02.2025 Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, Syrup 100ml.
IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar.
6. 28.03.2025 IKON Pharmachem 240 tablets of Alprazolam and 1560 tablets of
Pvt. Ltd. Selaqui, Tramadol Hydrochloride
Dehradun
7. 29.03.2025 Shop No. – F27, 1,24,200 tabelts of Alproazolam
Transport Nagar, Sewla
Kalan, Dehradun,
Uttarkhand.
8. 18 to J R Pharmaceuticals, 11,693 Bottles of Codeine Phosphate Cough
20.04.2025 Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, Syrup and 2.982 Kgs of White Powder of
IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. Tramadol (Suspected).
9. 10 to IKON Pharmachem 931 packets containing approx. 156,465 bottles
17.06.2025 Pvt. Ltd., Selaqui, of CBCS, approx. 178,9600 tablets of
Dehradun Psychotropic medicine, raw material of 304.94
Kg Tramadol Hcl, 44.47 Kg of Codenie
Phosphate, 7.04 Kg Alprazolam and approx 643
Kg raw materials of other psychotropic &
narcotics hold in process product
10. 12.08.2025 M/s Digital Vision, 176 1,368 capsules of Tramadol + 16 bottles of
Mouza Ogli, Nahan Codeine Phosphate Cough syrup
Road, Kala-amb,
Sirmour, HP
11. 09/ 10.11.2025 M/s Vellinton 50,000 ampoules (2 ml each) 100 mg Tramadol,
Healthcare, Vill- 5,000 Vials (10 ml each) Midazolam, 12.060 Kg
Rampur Jatan, of Tramadol HCL, 0.300 Kg of Midazolam
Trilokpur Road, Kala- Hydrochloride, 0.980 Kg of Lorazepam, 0.570
amb, Sirmour, HP Kg of Diazepam, 1.050 Kg of Pentazocine
powder
12. 11.10.2025 M/s Digital Vision, 176
Mouza Ogli, Nahan
Road, Kala-amb,
Sirmour, HP
13. 12.11.2025 to M/s Digital Vision, 176 12 lakhs tablets of NRx/ Psychotropic medicine
16.11.2025 Mouza Ogli, Nahan and 150.62 Kg of NRx/ Psychotropic Raw
Road, Kala-amb, materials, 23.674 Kg of Dispensed Psychotropic3 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
4
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
Sirmour, HP Raw materials, 165.840 Kg of Compressed/
coated Psychotropic Tablets, 271.10 Kg
Psychotropic Granules Powder Substance and
573.100 Kg of Tramadol HCL Granules
(mixture ready for filing in capsules) bulk
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-54358-
2025) has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 13.05.2025. Learned
senior counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS
Act have not been scrupulously complied with, and thus, the prosecution case
suffers from inherent defects. Learned senior counsel has iterated that the trial
has not progressed with due expedition and the delay thereof cannot be
fastened upon the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has iterated that the
petitioner is one of the directors of the IKON Pharmachem Private Limited, a
duly licensed pharmaceutical entity, situated in Dehradun, authorized to
manufacture and distribute drugs and that the Company holds valid license
under Schedules C, C(I) and X of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Learned senior counsel has argued that the said company has not effected any
direct sale to individual unauthorized entities lacking requisite licences.
Learned senior counsel has argued that Tiwari Medical Agencies, who is a
duly registered and authorized dealer/ distributor under the Drug and
Cosmetic Rules, 1945, had valid licence from 22.12.2023 to 21.12.2028, in
between which, the said distributor had placed purchase order(s) with the
IKON company. Learned senior counsel has argued that the entire record of
the company duly stands supplied to the investigating officer and even the
complaint has already been filed by the NCB on 08.05.2025. Learned senior
counsel has argued that the prosecution has erroneously linked “Trekam-100”
tablets, allegedly manufactured by JR Pharmaceuticals, with IKON
4 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
5
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected casesPharmachem, whereas the said batch was never ever manufactured by
petitioner’s company – IKON Pharmachem. Learned senior counsel has
further argued that the petitioner is operating under valid manufacturing
licence and that he cannot ipso facto be equated with illicit trafficking under
the NDPS Act. Learned senior counsel has argued that even assuming certain
distributors, including Tiwari Medical Agencies, were allegedly found
dealing in counterfeit products, as per prosecution case, the petitioner’s
Company had duly verified their licences and supporting documents at the
time of entering into commercial transaction(s). Learned senior counsel has
iterated that no direct recovery is effected from the petitioner and that alleged
seizure(s) from third parties cannot, without cogent material, be attributed to
the him. On these basis, it is contended that statutory embargo under Section
37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-2983-2026), apart
from submissions made by learned Senior counsel, as aforesaid, has argued
that the petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2025. Learned counsel has argued
that the petitioner was not named in the complaint and has only been
implicated, in this case, on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused,
which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has argued that
company of the petitioner, namely, Kvati Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is registered
and duly authorized firm having valid legal licence for sale (for distribution)
of drugs other than those specified in Schedules C, C(I) and X to the Drugs
and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner
has not received or sold even a single table to any individual.
5 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
6
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-1520-2026), apart
from submissions made by learned Senior counsel, as aforesaid, has argued
that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2025. Learned counsel has iterated
that alleged recovery of 5,000 tablets was effected from main accused,
namely Aashu Arora, on 07.02.2025. Learned counsel has argued that the
petitioner was the proprietor of M/s Rama Medicone and the same is duly
licensed firm. Learned counsel has argued that since he suffered loss, as a
result of which, he closed his aforesaid shop in December, 2024 and
thereafter, there was no dealing of any sort. Learned counsel has argued that
the petitioner, neither has any concern with Aashu Arora, from whom alleged
contraband was recovered nor have any business or financial dealings with JR
Pharmaceuticals or its proprietors.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-65090-2025),
apart from submissions made by learned Senior counsel, as aforesaid, has
argued that the petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2025. Learned counsel has
argued that the petitioner was not named in the complaint and he has been
implicated, in this case, on the basis of disclosure statement, which is not
permissible under law. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner is
merely working as a helper in M/s Shivam Distributor. Learned counsel has
iterated that the petitioner has no knowledge about the aforesaid firm
allegedly being bogus/ fake.
Apart from above, learned senior counsel and other counsel, in
respective cases, have argued that upon culmination of investigation, challan
stands presented and total 49 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of
6 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
7
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected caseswhich, none has been examined till date. Nothing is to be recovered from the
petitioners. The petitioners have suffered substantial incarceration and no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars. Thus,
regular bail is prayed for.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has
opposed the present petitions by arguing that the allegations raised against the
petitioner(s) are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner(s) do not deserve
the concession of the regular bail.
5.1. Learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has argued that the
petitioner (Ashish Verma) is the director of IKON Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.,
Dehradun and associate of Praful Prakash Sharma. He had supplied the seized
Alprazolam Tablets and Tramadol tablets and was involved in diversion of
psychotropic medicines as he supplied the said medicine to the non-existence
firms. Learned counsel has argued that there are CDR and WahtsApp details
etc. to substantiate the guilt of the petitioner.
5.2. Learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has argued that the
petitioner (Varun Kumar) has argued that the petitioner is the owner of Kvati
Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and associate of Ajeet Singh of J R Pharmaceuticals and
Praful Prakash Sharma and is involved in diversion of psychotropic medicine
to non-existence firms.
5.3. Learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has argued that the
petitioner (Dinesh) has argued that the petitioner is the owner of Rama
Medicose, Mandore, Jodhpur, Rajasthan and is involved in diversion of
Tramadol Tablets.
7 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
8
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
5.4. Learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has argued that the
petitioner (Biram Ram Pooniya @ Veeru) has argued that the petitioner is the
owner of M/s Shivam Distributor, Nagaur, Rajasthan, who is also involved in
diversion of Tramadol Tablets through this firm.
5.5. Apart from above, learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has
argued that huge narcotics contraband has been recovered, in the present case,
and the same, being commercial in nature, falls under the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that
petitions in hand are barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and
are, thus, liable to be rejected on this score alone. In case, the petitioner(s) are
released on bail, there is all likelihood that they may abscond from the
process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses.
Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate(s) dated
08.02.2026, in the Court today, which are taken on record.
6. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper-
book as also the record produced before me.
7. Before delving further into the merits of the case, it would be
apposite to refer herein to the following case-law germane to the matter(s) in
issue:
i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
Nakade,, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
versus Namdeo Ashruba NakadeNo.9792/2025, has held as under:
“8. This Court is of the view that the issue of substance abuse
has emerged as a global public health crisis in the twenty-first
century, affecting every country worldwide, as drug trafficking and
addiction have become pervasive. The United Nations Office on
8 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
9
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported in its 2025 World Drug Report
that “As at 2023, some 316 million people worldwide had used
drugs in the past year, representing an increase over the past decade
that outpaces population growth, which indicates a higher
prevalence of drug use.”
9. In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug abuse
among the youth. Substance abuse not only affects individuals,
families, and communities but also undermines various aspects of
health including physical, social, political, cultural foundations, and
mental well-being. (See: “Bhattacharya S, Menon GS, Garg S,
Grover A, Saleem SM, Kushwaha P. The lingering menace of drug
abuse among the Indian youth – it’s time for action. Indian J
Community Med 2025;50:S9-12, published on 17th April, 2025”)
10. According to many news reports, India faces a clear dilemma
between tackling the narcotics crisis systematically or sacrificing its
most valuable resource i.e. its young people. The extent of menace
of drug abuse has also been highlighted by this Court in the case of
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, (2025) 5
SCC 155 wherein this Court has observed as under:
“9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the
length and breadth of our country with the Central and every
State Government fighting against the menace of substance
abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse
is an immediate and serious concern for India. As the globe
grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use
Disorders (“SUD”) and an ever accessible drug market, the
consequences leave a generational Page 75 of 84 imprint on
public health and even national security. Article 47 of the
Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising
of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its
people and the improvement of public health as among its
primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to
bring about prohibition of the consumption except for
medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which
are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to
address the root causes of this predicament and develop
effective intervention strategies to ensure that India’s
younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to
substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace.
This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to
social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment,
spousal violence, and even property crime in a family.”
11. In the present case, this Court finds that though the
Respondent-accused was in custody for one year four months and
charges have not been framed, yet the allegations are serious
inasmuch as not only is the recovery much in excess of the
commercial quantity but the Respondent-accused allegedly got the
cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to conceal the
contraband.
12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-
accused is involved in drug trafficking in an organized manner.
Consequently, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter.
13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has
been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years
9 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
10
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has
been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time.”
ii) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No(s).7768 of 2025, has held as under:
“15. At this stage, two features stand out. The High Court’s
conclusion that there is no material to show that the applicant had
any knowledge of the cocaine in the consignment has been arrived at
without discussion of the statements of the respondent and
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, including the
assertion that the respondent had placed the orders for import,
controlled the logistics chain, coordinated with the overseas
supplier, and was present when the consignment was opened. The
High Court has not examined whether those circumstances, taken at
face value for the limited purpose of bail, could prima facie indicate
conscious control or involvement sufficient to attract the
presumption of culpable mental state indicated under Section 35 of
the NDPS Act.
16. Further, while granting bail, the High Court recorded that
there were no antecedents against the applicant. The material before
this Court includes the Union’s assertion that the respondent had
already been apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure of
approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035
kilograms of Cocaine allegedly imported through the same channel
only days before the present seizure. That assertion is neither
noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.
17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises,
recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that
the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged
incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail. Such a
finding is not a casual observation. It is the statutory threshold under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle the discretionary relief
and grant of bail must necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the
material available. A conclusion of this nature, if returned without
addressing the prosecution’s assertions of operative control and
antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of
evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at first
instance.”
iii) This Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala
CRM–M-33729
versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM 33729–2025
2025:PHHC:089161)) = 2025 SCC OnLine P&H4537; after
(2025:PHHC:089161
relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Thamisharasi & Ors,
10 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
11
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
1995(4) SCC 190, Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira,
2004 (3) SCC 549, Union of India vs. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari,
2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 186, Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab,
2018 (13) SCC 813, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit
Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain
vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260, Narcotics
Control Bureau vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, Usmanbhai
Dawoodbhai Memon vs. State of Gujarat, 1988(1)
RCR(Criminal) 540, Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State
of Maharashtra & Anr. 2005(5) SCC 294, Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Vs. Vijay Sai Reddy, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal)
252, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok
Kumar and another, 1987(4) SCC 497, Gujarat Water Supply
and Sewerage Board vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., and
another, 1987(1) SCC 532, Collector and others vs. P.
Mangamma and others, 2003(4) SCC 488, Commissioner of
Income-tax, Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, 1958 SCC Online SC 30,
Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri
Gurudasmal and others 1970(1) SCC 633, Tinsukhia Electric
Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam, 1989(3) SCC 709 and
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers,
2003(3) SCC 57; has held, thus:
“14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following
postulates emerge:
(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act
of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or
11 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
12
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial
quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section
37 of NDPS Act.
(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a
bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any
exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative
etc.
(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion
when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant
has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and
folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant.
II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are
in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS
or any other applicable extant law.
III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are
cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are
required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.
IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section
37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence”:
(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material,
including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of
adjudicating such bail plea.
(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or
innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required
for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication &
culmination of trial.
(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including
material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the
bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea.
V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’:
(i) The word ‘likely’ ought to be interpreted as requiring a
demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-
applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict
future conduct of the bail-applicant.
(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the
antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the
nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the
involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot
ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing
offence in the future.
(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose
upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such
12 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
13
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting
bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS
Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police
Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of
any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case,
imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for
satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise
of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions
stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial
discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of
a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as
to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement
under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique
facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a
utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial
wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter.”
8. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the
court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and
principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the
interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must
evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the
accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the
likely sentence upon conviction. The Court must also assess the likelihood of
the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of
the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused
tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character,
antecedents, financial means, societal standing and overall conduct of the
accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the Court must weigh the potential
danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or thwarting its due
course. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani
Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under:
13 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
14
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
“14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an
application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature
and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi)
likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi,
2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh
179). While a
v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179
vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses
may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that
his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is
material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with
the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following
principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC
528 :”The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The
court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the
case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any
order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It
is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see
GovindUpadhyay
Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250
(SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal)
801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.”
14 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
15
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
This Court also in specific terms held that :
“the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for
granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it
is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already
undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the
near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of
the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life
imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere
fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three
years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged
on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near
future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be
sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence
alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses
by the accused during the period he was on bail.”
9. At the outset, it may be observed that at the stage of
consideration of regular bail, this Court is not required, nor would it be
appropriate, to undertake a meticulous examination of the legality of
commercial transactions or to record definitive findings on the merits of the
competing claims, which is to be tested during trial. Nevertheless, the Court
cannot remain oblivious to the broader factual backdrop emerging from the
record while assessing whether discretion ought to be exercised in favour of
the petitioner(s).
9.1. The grant of bail, though discretionary, assumes a narrower
compass where allegations pertain to organised diversion of regulated
pharmaceutical substances into illicit channels under the guise of lawful
business operations. Courts have consistently cautioned that entities operating
within the pharmaceutical sector cannot be permitted to cloak unlawful
15 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
16
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
activities behind the facade of licences or corporate structures, particularly
where the allegations disclose large-scale commercial dealings capable of
undermining the statutory framework of the NDPS Act. It is a settled
principle that legality of form cannot defeat scrutiny of substance; the mere
existence of licences or corporate entities does not, by itself, dispel a prima
facie inference arising from surrounding circumstances.
9.2. In cases involving alleged diversion through layered business
arrangements or intermediary entities, the Court is required to adopt a
cautious approach, as complex offences pertaining to narcotics, often employ
structured transactions or shell arrangements to distance principal actors from
the physical recovery of contraband. The submission that the petitioner(s)
were operating through licensed entities or formal commercial channels,
therefore, cannot be accepted at face value at this stage, particularly when the
magnitude of the alleged recovery indicates a coordinated supply chain
extending beyond isolated transactions. Commercial sophistication cannot be
permitted to become a shield against criminal accountability.
10. In the present case, the petitioner(s) were arrested on 13.05.2025,
25.05.2025, 13.06.2025 and 11.09.2025, respectively, whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 05.08.2025. Out of
total cited 49 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. The
trial is underway. Indubitably, the petitioner(s) are involved in the complaint
in question pertaining to huge commercial quantity of contraband as per
NDPS Act, 1985. Prima facie, the petitioner(s) are accused of having dealings
in narcotic substances with the firm(s) which exist only on papers and not
16 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::
17
CRM-
CRM-M-54358-
54358-2025 and 03 other connected cases
physically. From the rival submissions as also the material brought forth
before me, no cause is made out in favour of the petitioner(s) to meet with the
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, keeping in view the entirety of
the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be
recovered being commercial in nature; the petition(s) in hand deserve to be
dismissed.
11. Ordered accordingly.
12. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
13. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
February 11, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
17 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 09:17:09 :::