CRM-M v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR, NARCOTICS

Judgment

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, is for the grant of regular bail to Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, is for the grant of regular bail to Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, is for the grant of regular bail to Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 dated 01.05.2025 registered with the the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 dated 01.05.2025 registered with the the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 dated 01.05.2025 registered with the the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 dated 01.05.2025 registered with the ar Zonal Unit, District Amritsar under Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, District Amritsar under ar Zonal Unit, District Amritsar under Narcotics Control Bureau, Amrits Sections 8, 22, 23, 25, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Sections 8, 22, 23, 25, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Sections 8, 22, 23, 25, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are as Facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are as Facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are as follows: “On 01.05.2025, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal “On 01.05.2025, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal “On 01.05.2025, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal “On 01.05.2025, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- -9371 of 2026 -2- 31900 tablets of Tramadol from Ballista Pharmaceuticals, Unit recovered 31900 tablets of Tramadol from Ballista Pharmaceuticals, 31900 tablets of Tramadol from Ballista Pharmaceuticals, Unit recovered 6, Jawala Estate, Haripura Road, Amritsar. A crime case bearing NCB SCF-6, Jawala Estate, Haripura Road, Amritsar. A crime case bearing NCB 6, Jawala Estate, Haripura Road, Amritsar. A crime case bearing NCB 6, Jawala Estate, Haripura Road, Amritsar. A crime case bearing NCB Crime No.14 dated 01.05.2025, under Section 8, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 was Crime No.14 dated 01.05.2025, under Section 8, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 was Crime No.14 dated 01.05.2025, under Section 8, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 was Crime No.14 dated 01.05.2025, under Section 8, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 was of abovesaid case registered against Amit Bhandari. During investigation of abovesaid case registered against Amit Bhandari. During investigation registered against Amit Bhandari. During investigation NCB team conducted raid at Corporate Medicos, Inside Corporate Hospital, NCB team conducted raid at Corporate Medicos, Inside Corporate Hospital, NCB team conducted raid at Corporate Medicos, Inside Corporate Hospital, NCB team conducted raid at Corporate Medicos, Inside Corporate Hospital, Amritsar and recovered 2000 tablets of Tramadol and arrested Rajinder Amritsar and recovered 2000 tablets of Tramadol and arrested Rajinder Amritsar and recovered 2000 tablets of Tramadol and arrested Rajinder Amritsar and recovered 2000 tablets of Tramadol and arrested Rajinder Rajan on 02.05.2025 and also arrested Jatinder Malhotra on 03.05.2025. Rajan on 02.05.2025 and also arrested Jatinder Malhotra on 03.05.2025. Rajan on 02.05.2025 and also arrested Jatinder Malhotra on 03.05.2025. Rajan on 02.05.2025 and also arrested Jatinder Malhotra on 03.05.2025. itsar raided at Life Kare Medicare Inside Life Another team of NCB Amritsar raided at Life Kare Medicare Inside Life itsar raided at Life Kare Medicare Inside Life Another team of NCB Amr Kare Hospital, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on Kare Hospital, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on Kare Hospital, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on Kare Hospital, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on

02.05.2025 and recovered 472 Tablets of Tramadol, but the accused Parveen 02.05.2025 and recovered 472 Tablets of Tramadol, but the accused Parveen 02.05.2025 and recovered 472 Tablets of Tramadol, but the accused Parveen 02.05.2025 and recovered 472 Tablets of Tramadol, but the accused Parveen Kumar, who is sole proprietor of the said firm Life Kare Medicare Kumar, who is sole proprietor of the said firm Life Kare Medicare Kumar, who is sole proprietor of the said firm Life Kare Medicare Kumar, who is sole proprietor of the said firm Life Kare Medicare absconded from the raided place.” absconded from the raided place.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the only allegation he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the only allegation he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the only allegation he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the only allegation ainst the petitioner is that, on 01.05.2025, a raid was conducted at the against the petitioner is that, on 01.05.2025, a raid was conducted at the ainst the petitioner is that, on 01.05.2025, a raid was conducted at the ainst the petitioner is that, on 01.05.2025, a raid was conducted at the premises of Ballista Pharmaceuticals and 31,900 tablets of tramadol were premises of Ballista Pharmaceuticals and 31,900 tablets of tramadol were premises of Ballista Pharmaceuticals and 31,900 tablets of tramadol were premises of Ballista Pharmaceuticals and 31,900 tablets of tramadol were accused Amit Bhandari, who is the real brother of the recovered from co-accused Amit Bhandari, who is the real brother of the accused Amit Bhandari, who is the real brother of the recovered from co present petitioner. It is a matter of fact that the said co present petitioner. It is a matter of accused has been fact that the said co-accused has been ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2026. He granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2026. He ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2026. He granted bail by the Co further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the alleged raid was conducted, and he has been roped into the present crime alleged raid was conducted, and he has been roped into the present crime alleged raid was conducted, and he has been roped into the present crime alleged raid was conducted, and he has been roped into the present crime only because he is one of the partners in the said firm. He further submitted only because he is one of the partners in the said firm. He further submitted only because he is one of the partners in the said firm. He further submitted only because he is one of the partners in the said firm. He further submitted that his two other partners in the said firm, namely Nabhay Bhandari and that his two other partners in the said firm, namely Nabhay Bhandari and that his two other partners in the said firm, namely Nabhay Bhandari and that his two other partners in the said firm, namely Nabhay Bhandari and Priya Bhandari, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co- Priya Bhandari, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co Priya Bhandari, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co Priya Bhandari, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- -9371 of 2026 -3-

4.11.2025. He argued that the petitioner ordinate Bench vide order dated 04.11.2025. He argued that the petitioner 4.11.2025. He argued that the petitioner ordinate Bench vide order dated 0 has a license to stock, sell, or distribute, issued in the name of his firm, has a license to stock, sell, or distribute, issued in the name of his firm, has a license to stock, sell, or distribute, issued in the name of his firm, has a license to stock, sell, or distribute, issued in the name of his firm, which is valid till 31.03.2027, and a specific condition has been embodied which is valid till 31.03.2027, and a specific condition has been embodied which is valid till 31.03.2027, and a specific condition has been embodied which is valid till 31.03.2027, and a specific condition has been embodied stribute oral therein whereby the firm has been allowed to stock, sell, or distribute oral therein whereby the firm has been allowed to stock, sell, or di therein whereby the firm has been allowed to stock, sell, or di dosage formulations containing tramadol and tapentadol, with a possession dosage formulations containing tramadol and tapentadol, with a possession dosage formulations containing tramadol and tapentadol, with a possession dosage formulations containing tramadol and tapentadol, with a possession limit of 50,000 solid oral dosage forms of each at a time. He contended that, limit of 50,000 solid oral dosage forms of each at a time. He contended that, limit of 50,000 solid oral dosage forms of each at a time. He contended that, limit of 50,000 solid oral dosage forms of each at a time. He contended that, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the recovery effected from the as per the allegations made in the FIR, the recovery effected from the as per the allegations made in the FIR, the recovery effected from the as per the allegations made in the FIR, the recovery effected from the m was 31,900 tablets of tramadol, whereas, as per the premises of the firm was 31,900 tablets of tramadol, whereas, as per the m was 31,900 tablets of tramadol, whereas, as per the premises of the fir license, the firm has permission to store 50,000 tablets of tramadol. license, the firm has permission to store 50,000 tablets of tramadol. license, the firm has permission to store 50,000 tablets of tramadol. license, the firm has permission to store 50,000 tablets of tramadol. Therefore, the quantity recovered is much less than the permitted quantity Therefore, the quantity recovered is much less than the permitted quantity Therefore, the quantity recovered is much less than the permitted quantity Therefore, the quantity recovered is much less than the permitted quantity rther submitted that for which the firm possessed the requisite license. He further submitted that for which the firm possessed the requisite license. He fu for which the firm possessed the requisite license. He fu accused, Rajender Rajan, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble one of the co-accused, Rajender Rajan, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble accused, Rajender Rajan, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble one of the co Supreme Court solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not Supreme Court solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not Supreme Court solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not Supreme Court solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not explained to him. To buttress his argument, he produced the arrest memos of explained to him. To buttress his argument, he produced the arrest memos of explained to him. To buttress his argument, he produced the arrest memos of explained to him. To buttress his argument, he produced the arrest memos of co-accused R ajender Rajan and the present petitioner and submitted that accused Rajender Rajan and the present petitioner and submitted that ajender Rajan and the present petitioner and submitted that both are similar and made in a template format. Hence, the petitioner is at both are similar and made in a template format. Hence, the petitioner is at both are similar and made in a template format. Hence, the petitioner is at both are similar and made in a template format. Hence, the petitioner is at accused qua the fact that the grounds of arrest were parity with the said co-accused qua the fact that the grounds of arrest were accused qua the fact that the grounds of arrest were parity with the said co itted that the petitioner has clean not fully explained to him. He further submitted that the petitioner has clean not fully explained to him. He further subm not fully explained to him. He further subm antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner has been in antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner has been in antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner has been in antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.06.2025, i.e. more than approximately 10 months; nothing custody since 08.06.2025, i.e. more than approximately 10 months; nothing custody since 08.06.2025, i.e. more than approximately 10 months; nothing custody since 08.06.2025, i.e. more than approximately 10 months; nothing ng time further remains to be recovered from him and the trial may take a long time further remains to be recovered from him and the trial may take a lo further remains to be recovered from him and the trial may take a lo to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail. petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail. petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the il made by the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail made by the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular ba respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular ba PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- -9371 of 2026 -4- petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is the owner and controlling petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is the owner and controlling petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is the owner and controlling petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is the owner and controlling person of the firm Ballista Pharmaceuticals, which was engaged in the person of the firm Ballista Pharmaceuticals, which was engaged in the person of the firm Ballista Pharmaceuticals, which was engaged in the person of the firm Ballista Pharmaceuticals, which was engaged in the P tramadol marketing and distribution of NRx medicines, including Tricon-P tramadol marketing and distribution of NRx medicines, including Tricon marketing and distribution of NRx medicines, including Tricon substance regulated under the NDPS Act, 1985. tablets, a psychotropic substance regulated under the NDPS Act, 1985. substance regulated under the NDPS Act, 1985. tablets, a psychotropic During the investigation, it was found that the said firm was functioning During the investigation, it was found that the said firm was functioning During the investigation, it was found that the said firm was functioning During the investigation, it was found that the said firm was functioning under the active control and supervision of the petitioner, while the day- under the active control and supervision of the petitioner, while the day under the active control and supervision of the petitioner, while the day -to- d out by his day marketing and distribution operations were being carried out by his day marketing and distribution operations were being carrie day marketing and distribution operations were being carrie He argued that the investigation has brother, co-accused Amit Bhandari. He argued that the investigation has He argued that the investigation has brother, co revealed repeated and systematic violations of the license conditions by revealed repeated and systematic violations of the license conditions by revealed repeated and systematic violations of the license conditions by revealed repeated and systematic violations of the license conditions by Pharmaceuticals under the control of the petitioner. Documentary Ballista Pharmaceuticals under the control of the petitioner. Documentary Pharmaceuticals under the control of the petitioner. Documentary Pharmaceuticals under the control of the petitioner. Documentary g the investigation establishes that the firm violated evidence collected during the investigation establishes that the firm violated g the investigation establishes that the firm violated evidence collected durin the stock limits prescribed under the license on more than 100 occasions the stock limits prescribed under the license on more than 100 occasions the stock limits prescribed under the license on more than 100 occasions the stock limits prescribed under the license on more than 100 occasions over a period of time and repeatedly stocked tramadol tablets far beyond the over a period of time and repeatedly stocked tramadol tablets far beyond the over a period of time and repeatedly stocked tramadol tablets far beyond the over a period of time and repeatedly stocked tramadol tablets far beyond the t be treated as inadvertent permissible limit. Such persistent violations cannot be treated as inadvertent permissible limit. Such persistent violations canno permissible limit. Such persistent violations canno or technical irregularities, but constitute deliberate acts facilitating illicit or technical irregularities, but constitute deliberate acts facilitating illicit or technical irregularities, but constitute deliberate acts facilitating illicit or technical irregularities, but constitute deliberate acts facilitating illicit He further argued that the contention trafficking of psychotropic substances. He further argued that the contention He further argued that the contention trafficking of psychotropic substances. raised by the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the raised by the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the raised by the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the raised by the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the ermissible limits of the license is wholly misleading and devoid of merit. permissible limits of the license is wholly misleading and devoid of merit. ermissible limits of the license is wholly misleading and devoid of merit. ermissible limits of the license is wholly misleading and devoid of merit. The license issued to the petitioner cannot be used as a shield to justify the The license issued to the petitioner cannot be used as a shield to justify the The license issued to the petitioner cannot be used as a shield to justify the The license issued to the petitioner cannot be used as a shield to justify the illegal supply and diversion of psychotropic substances to unauthorized illegal supply and diversion of psychotropic substances to unauthorized illegal supply and diversion of psychotropic substances to unauthorized illegal supply and diversion of psychotropic substances to unauthorized exists, the sale and distribution of tramadol entities. Even where a license exists, the sale and distribution of tramadol exists, the sale and distribution of tramadol entities. Even where a license tablets must strictly comply with statutory requirements, tablets must strictly comply with statutory requirements, tablets must strictly comply with statutory requirements, tablets must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including including including including verification of the license of the purchasing entity, maintenance of proper verification of the license of the purchasing entity, maintenance of proper verification of the license of the purchasing entity, maintenance of proper verification of the license of the purchasing entity, maintenance of proper records, and adherence to prescribed limits. In the present case, records, and adherence to prescribed limits. In the present case, records, and adherence to prescribed limits. In the present case, investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner deliberately supplied investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner deliberately supplied investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner deliberately supplied investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner deliberately supplied PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- -9371 of 2026 -5- tramadol tablets to entities that either did not possess the required license or tramadol tablets to entities that either did not possess the required license or tramadol tablets to entities that either did not possess the required license or tramadol tablets to entities that either did not possess the required license or uch conduct squarely were not authorized to stock the quantity supplied and such conduct squarely were not authorized to stock the quantity supplied were not authorized to stock the quantity supplied attracts the penal provisions of the NDPS Act. attracts the penal pr He further submitted that, ovisions of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that, during the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner deliberately used during the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner deliberately used during the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner deliberately used during the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner deliberately used a fake address for the purpose of documentation and transportation of a fake address for the purpose of documentation and transportation of a fake address for the purpose of documentation and transportation of a fake address for the purpose of documentation and transportation of boxes recovered from tramadol consignments. The address mentioned on the boxes recovered from tramadol consignments. The address mentioned on the tramadol consignments. The address mentioned on the Ballista Pharmaceuticals was 73, Radhakunj, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Ballista Pharmaceuticals was 73, Radhakunj, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Ballista Pharmaceuticals was 73, Radhakunj, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Ballista Pharmaceuticals was 73, Radhakunj, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Upon verification of the said premises, the owner of the property Pradesh. Upon verification of the said premises, the owner of the property Pradesh. Upon verification of the said premises, the owner of the property Pradesh. Upon verification of the said premises, the owner of the property stated that he had no connection whatsoever with Ballista Pharmaceuticals stated that he had no connection whatsoever with Ballista Pharmaceuticals stated that he had no connection whatsoever with Ballista Pharmaceuticals stated that he had no connection whatsoever with Ballista Pharmaceuticals petitioner and that he had never placed any order or maintained or with the petitioner and that he had never placed any order or maintained petitioner and that he had never placed any order or maintained or with the He further argued that the any business dealings with the said firm. He further argued that the any business dealings with the said firm. any business dealings with the said firm. accused persons who have petitioner cannot claim parity with any other co-accused persons who have petitioner cannot claim parity with any other co petitioner cannot claim parity with any other co present petitioner is materially been granted bail, as the role attributed to the present petitioner is materially been granted bail, as the role attributed to the been granted bail, as the role attributed to the different and far more serious. The co-accused, Nabha different and far more serious. The co Bhandari and Priya accused, Nabhay Bhandari and Priya Bhandari, were granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that they were Bhandari, were granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that they were Bhandari, were granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that they were Bhandari, were granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that they were sleeping partners in the said firm. He argued that the claim of petitioner sleeping partners in the said firm. He argued that the sleeping partners in the said firm. He argued that the claim of petitioner of parity with co-accused Rajender Rajan on the ground of non parity with disclosure of on the ground of non-disclosure of grounds of arrest is misplaced, as the arrest memo of said co grounds of arrest is misplaced accused is as the arrest memo of said co-accused is , as a bare perusal of totally different from the arrest memo of the petitioner, as a bare perusal of totally different from the arrest memo of totally different from the arrest memo of reveal that it bears petitioner’s signatures the petitioner’s arrest memo would reveal that it bears petitioner’s signatures reveal that it bears petitioner’s signatures the petitioner’s arrest memo would wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned that grounds of arrest were wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned that grounds of arrest were wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned that grounds of arrest were wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned that grounds of arrest were also bears signatures duly explained to him. Moreover, the said arrest memo also bears signatures duly explained to him. Moreover, the said arrest memo duly explained to him. Moreover, the said arrest memo , which was missing from the arrest memo of the of two attesting witnesses, which was missing from the arrest memo of the , which was missing from the arrest memo of the of two attesting witnesses co-accused. He submitted that the illegal trafficking of tramadol tablets has accused. He submitted that the illegal trafficking of tramadol tablets has He submitted that the illegal trafficking of tramadol tablets has become a matter of grave concern in the State of Punjab, where such become a matter of grave concern in the State of Punjab, where such become a matter of grave concern in the State of Punjab, where such become a matter of grave concern in the State of Punjab, where such PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- -9371 of 2026 -6- g addicts. The petitioner and his substances are widely abused by drug addicts. The petitioner and his g addicts. The petitioner and his substances are widely abused by dru associates were operating a cartel involving pharmaceutical firms and associates were operating a cartel involving pharmaceutical firms and associates were operating a cartel involving pharmaceutical firms and associates were operating a cartel involving pharmaceutical firms and hospital pharmacists for the diversion of tramadol tablets into the illicit hospital pharmacists for the diversion of tramadol tablets into the illicit hospital pharmacists for the diversion of tramadol tablets into the illicit hospital pharmacists for the diversion of tramadol tablets into the illicit He further submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals market. He further submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals He further submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals He further submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals established supply chain for the diversion of tramadol tablets, and the a well-established supply chain for the diversion of tramadol tablets, and the established supply chain for the diversion of tramadol tablets, and the established supply chain for the diversion of tramadol tablets, and the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution case and may lead to tampering with evidence and influencing prosecution case and may lead to tampering with evidence and influencing prosecution case and may lead to tampering with evidence and influencing prosecution case and may lead to tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses. Thus, learned counsel prayed that considering the of witnesses. seriousness ed counsel prayed that considering the seriousness of the offence and the adverse impact on public health and society at large of the offence and the adverse impact on public health and society at large of the offence and the adverse impact on public health and society at large of the offence and the adverse impact on public health and society at large the present petition deserves to be dismissed. the present petition deserves to be dismissed. the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard. The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain 6. The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain to the illegal diversion and trafficking of psychotropic substances, regulated to the illegal diversion and trafficking of psychotropic substances, regulated to the illegal diversion and trafficking of psychotropic substances, regulated to the illegal diversion and trafficking of psychotropic substances, regulated under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The material collected during under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The material collected during under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The material collected during under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The material collected during at the petitioner was not merely a investigation prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely a at the petitioner was not merely a investigation prima facie indicates th nominal partner of Ballista Pharmaceuticals, but was actively controlling nominal partner of Ballista Pharmaceuticals, but was actively controlling nominal partner of Ballista Pharmaceuticals, but was actively controlling nominal partner of Ballista Pharmaceuticals, but was actively controlling and supervising the affairs of the firm, which was allegedly engaged in and supervising the affairs of the firm, which was allegedly engaged in and supervising the affairs of the firm, which was allegedly engaged in and supervising the affairs of the firm, which was allegedly engaged in systematic and repeated violations of the conditions of the license issued in systematic and repeated violations of the conditions of the license issued systematic and repeated violations of the conditions of the license issued systematic and repeated violations of the conditions of the license issued reveals that the firm had exceeded the its favour. The status report reveals that the firm had exceeded the reveals that the firm had exceeded the its favour. permissible stock limits on numerous occasions and had allegedly supplied permissible stock limits on numerous occasions and had allegedly supplied permissible stock limits on numerous occasions and had allegedly supplied permissible stock limits on numerous occasions and had allegedly supplied tramadol tablets to unauthorized entities without adherence to the mandatory tramadol tablets to unauthorized entities without adherence to the mandatory tramadol tablets to unauthorized entities without adherence to the mandatory tramadol tablets to unauthorized entities without adherence to the mandatory ge, the contention of the petitioner that the statutory safeguards. At this stage, the contention of the petitioner that the ge, the contention of the petitioner that the statutory safeguards. At this sta quantity recovered was within the licensed limit cannot by itself absolve him quantity recovered was within the licensed limit cannot by itself absolve him quantity recovered was within the licensed limit cannot by itself absolve him quantity recovered was within the licensed limit cannot by itself absolve him of criminal liability, particularly when the prosecution has specifically of criminal liability, particularly when the prosecution has specifically of criminal liability, particularly when the prosecution has specifically of criminal liability, particularly when the prosecution has specifically chotropic substances alleged misuse of the license for illegal diversion of psychotropic substances alleged misuse of the license for illegal diversion of psy alleged misuse of the license for illegal diversion of psy PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- -9371 of 2026 -7- into the illicit market. The allegation regarding the use of a fake address for into the illicit market. The allegation regarding the use of a fake address for into the illicit market. The allegation regarding the use of a fake address for into the illicit market. The allegation regarding the use of a fake address for transportation and documentation of consignments further strengthens the transportation and documentation of consignments further strengthens the transportation and documentation of consignments further strengthens the transportation and documentation of consignments further strengthens the prosecution case and prima facie reflects deliberate concealment and prosecution case and prima facie reflects deliberate concealment and prosecution case and prima facie reflects deliberate concealment and prosecution case and prima facie reflects deliberate concealment and in the conduct of business operations. The plea of parity raised manipulation in the conduct of business operations. The plea of parity raised in the conduct of business operations. The plea of parity raised manipulation accused who were granted by the petitioner is also misconceived, as the co-accused who were granted by the petitioner is also misconceived, as the co by the petitioner is also misconceived, as the co anticipatory bail were stated to be sleeping partners, whereas the present anticipatory bail were stated to be sleeping partners, whereas the present anticipatory bail were stated to be sleeping partners, whereas the present anticipatory bail were stated to be sleeping partners, whereas the present controlling person of the firm. petitioner is alleged to be the principal controlling person of the firm. petitioner is alleged to be the principal petitioner is alleged to be the principal accused Rajender Similarly, the reliance placed upon the bail granted to co-accused Rajender Similarly, the reliance placed upon the bail granted to co Similarly, the reliance placed upon the bail granted to co disclosure of grounds of arrest does not advance Rajan on the ground of non-disclosure of grounds of arrest does not advance disclosure of grounds of arrest does not advance Rajan on the ground of non the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the arrest memo placed on record the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the arrest memo placed on recor the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the arrest memo placed on recor the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the arrest memo placed on recor bears the signatures of the petitioner as well as prima facie reflects that it bears the signatures of the petitioner as well as bears the signatures of the petitioner as well as prima facie reflects attesting witnesses acknowledging that the grounds of arrest were explained attesting witnesses acknowledging that the grounds of arrest were explained attesting witnesses acknowledging that the grounds of arrest were explained attesting witnesses acknowledging that the grounds of arrest were explained to the petitioner Moreover, the present petition has been filed by the the petitioner. Moreover, the present petition has been filed by the Moreover, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is e period of incarceration are likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are likely to take time by itself or coupled with th likely to take time by itself or coupled with th not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna