CRM-M No. 17372 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sullar, Advocate for the respondent/NCB. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

#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 NCB Crime No. 24 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025, registered under Sections 8, 22, 25, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit.

#2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2025, after receiving a secret information, the officials of the respondent/NCB intercepted a truck bearing No.UP-11-AT-1031 near Zirakpur. During the search, the recovery of 4,95,800 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride (NRx Clovedol-100 SR) along with other medicines, which were being transported without any valid invoice, e-way bill or mandatory drug licence was effected. It is alleged that the CRM-M-17372-2026 (O&M) -2- consignment was originally destined for Dehradun but was diverted during transit towards Amritsar, whereupon the vehicle was intercepted. During investigation, the petitioner, who is one of the Directors of Eraya Pharma Pvt. Ltd., came to be nominated on the basis of the statements of co-accused, alleging that he had knowledge of and facilitated the diversion of the consignment by providing alternate contact details for delivery at a place different from the consignee mentioned in the invoices.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is neither the owner nor the driver of the intercepted vehicle and was not present at the spot at the time of recovery. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Director of a duly licensed pharmaceutical company holding valid GST registration and drug licences and that the medicines in question were supplied against valid purchase orders, invoices and transport documents in the ordinary course of business. It is further submitted that once the consignment had been handed over to the transporter, the petitioner had no control over its transportation or the subsequent alleged diversion. He further submits that the petitioner's implication rests solely upon the disclosure statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act without any independent evidence such as call records, electronic evidence or documentary material connecting him with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 22 days. 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. CRM-M-17372-2026 (O&M) -3-

#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 an organised network engaged in the illegal procurement, diversion and trafficking of psychotropic medicines pertains to commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. He 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 04 months and 22 days and is involved in another case under the NDPS Act. 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, during transit, the same was allegedly diverted from Roorkee towards Amritsar before it could reach its intended destination. As per the prosecution, the petitioner, being one of the Directors of Eraya Pharma Pvt. Ltd., was not a mere formal Director but was actively involved in coordinating the dispatch of pharmaceutical consignments through transport networks. The investigation further reveals that the petitioner remained in constant contact with Monu Kumar, the transporter, regarding the movement of the consignments and was aware that the Tramadol tablets were being diverted from their designated destination. It has further CRM-M-17372-2026 (O&M) -4- come on record that the petitioner allegedly provided the contact number of Afridi to his manager and instructed him to ensure delivery of the consignment to the person as directed. The prosecution, thus, attributes to the petitioner an active role in facilitating the illegal diversion and trafficking of the psychotropic substances.

#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 that in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, the 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-17372-2026 (O&M) -5-

#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:- The position of law on the grant of bail in matters “9. 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 in nature, renders an order granting bail mandatory unsustainable. A similar view has been expressed 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 material collected during investigation indicates the active involvement of the CRM-M-17372-2026 (O&M) -6- petitioner in facilitating the diversion of the contraband. The allegations against the petitioner are not based merely on the disclosure statements of the co- accused, but are also supported by the material collected during investigation indicating his role in the movement and diversion of the consignment. The petitioner is also stated to be involved in another case under the NDPS Act.

#10. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of allegations, the quantity of contraband involved and the criminal antecedents of 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