CRM-M No. 8454 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case Crime No. 24/2025 dated 19.11.2025, registered under Sections 8, 22, 29 and 60 of the NDPS, 1985, at Police Station Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit.

#2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2025, acting on a specific secret information, the officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Chandigarh Zonal Unit, intercepted truck No. UP-11-AT-1031 at Zirakpur. During search of the vehicle, 4,95,800 NRx Tramadol tablets (Clovedol-100 SR), (commercial quantity) were recovered. It is alleged that the consignment was being transported without any valid invoice, e-way bill or CRM-M-8454-2026 (O&M) -2- requisite drug licence. During investigation, it has come on record that the petitioner, who was running a franchise of Tirupati Courier Agency, had played an active role in the transportation and diversion of the illicit consignment. According to the prosecution, although the consignment was originally destined for Dehradun, the petitioner, in connivance with the other accused, arranged for its diversion and instructed that it be delivered at Roorkee through a Porter vehicle. Thereafter, on the directions of the persons connected with the consignor and consignee, the consignment was handed over to another person at Roorkee, instead of being delivered to the original consignee. It is further alleged that the petitioner was not a mere transporter but was an integral link in the interstate network involved in the illegal transportation and diversion of the contraband.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is merely a franchise holder of Tirupati Courier Agency, engaged in the business of transportation of consignments. It is submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the contents of the parcels entrusted to him and had merely arranged transportation in the ordinary course of his business on the instructions of the consignor. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been regularly transporting pharmaceutical consignments for M/s Eraya Pharma Pvt. Ltd. for about one year and the consignments were accompanied by invoices and e-way bills showing the goods as medicines falling under HSN Code 300490. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody CRM-M-8454-2026 (O&M) -3- for the last more than 07 months and 02 days and is not involved in any other case. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.

#4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/NCB opposes the prayer for regular bail and submits that the petitioner is actively involved in the illegal procurement, diversion and trafficking of commercial quantity of NRx Tramadol tablets, which are psychotropic substances covered under the NDPS Act. During investigation, a well-coordinated interstate network engaged in illegal diversion and supply of psychotropic substances came to light, in which the present petitioner was found to be an active participant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a mere courier or transporter as the consignment was meant to be delivered to

Shri Ram Medical Store, Dehradun. The petitioner, in conspiracy with the other accused, deliberately arranged for its diversion to Roorkee and coordinated its delivery to an unauthorised person. The petitioner remained in constant touch with the co-accused, obtained the alternate contact number of co-accused Afridi, communicated the driver's details to him and facilitated delivery of the consignment at a location different from the one mentioned in the invoice. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has disclosed the active involvement of the petitioner with the directors and employees of Eraya Pharma Pvt. Ltd., namely Vishal Chaudhary, Yatinder @ Naveen and Nidhi, and establishes that the petitioner knowingly facilitated diversion of the consignment from its intended destination. The material CRM-M-8454-2026 (O&M) -4- collected during investigation, including the statements of co-accused, call records and other documentary evidence, clearly establishes the petitioner's role in the criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel further submits that the recovered contraband is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fully attracted. Learned counsel for the respondent/NCB has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 07 months and 02 days. Learned State counsel, upon instructions, submits that none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

#6. The allegations against the petitioner relate to the illegal procurement, diversion and trafficking of a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. According to the prosecution, the consignment was originally meant to be delivered at Dehradun. However, before it could reach its destination, the same was allegedly diverted at the instance of the petitioner and was delivered to an unauthorised person at Roorkee, from where it was intended to be further transported towards Amritsar. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was not merely acting as a courier agent but had actively facilitated the diversion of the consignment in conspiracy with the other accused. The material collected during investigation, according to the prosecution, includes the petitioner's own role in arranging the transportation, coordinating with the co-accused, obtaining alternate contact numbers, sharing CRM-M-8454-2026 (O&M) -5- the details of the driver and facilitating delivery of the consignment at a place different from the one mentioned in the invoice.

#7. Furthermore, the recovered contraband admittedly falls within the ambit of commercial quantity which attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, while examining the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, has delivered a catena of judgments including State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, 2026 INSC 411, wherein it has been held as under:- “ It is well-settled in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground that the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the Court a duty to record, before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The recording of such 6 Criminal Appeal No.1700 of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No.3326 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026 satisfaction is not a mere formality but a mandatory pre-condition, the non-observance of which vitiates the grant of bail. This Court, in Kashif (supra), has held in no uncertain terms that the recording of satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37 is mandatory and not merely directory, and that an order granting bail without such recorded satisfaction stands vitiated and cannot be sustained. The same view stands reiterated in Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra).” CRM-M-8454-2026 (O&M) -6-

#8. Similarly, in the case of ‘State of Punjab versus Gurjit Singh @ Geetu’ 2026 SCC Online SC 671, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court(s), while considering a petition for grant of bail in offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, is required to satisfy and record its satisfaction with respect to all the conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the Act. It has been held that the High Court cannot grant bail in a routine or mechanical manner and must specifically record a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “9. The position of law on the grant of bail in matters involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act is well settled. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is cast in mandatory terms. Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail, the Court can enlarge an accused on bail only upon 5 (2026) 1 SCC 500 6 Criminal Appeal No.1700 of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No.3326 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 7 of 11 recording its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions: first, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence; and second, that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The recording of such satisfaction is not a mere formality but a jurisdictional requirement. This Court in Kashif (supra) has held, in plain terms, that the non-recording of the twin satisfaction, being mandatory in nature, renders an order granting bail unsustainable. A similar view has been expressed in Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra) and Ajay Kumar Singh (supra).”

#9. In the present case, this Court does not find any ground to record the satisfaction as required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Prima facie, the CRM-M-8454-2026 (O&M) -7- material collected during investigation indicates the active involvement of the petitioner in facilitating the diversion of the contraband. Prima facie, the investigation indicates that the petitioner had an active role in facilitating the diversion of the consignment from its intended destination to another location. At this stage, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him.

#10. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of allegations, the commercial quantity of contraband involved and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

#12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move a fresh application for bail in case the trial does not make substantial progress.

#13. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 17, 2026 Sonia (H.S.GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No