The High Court
Case Details
2025 54229----2025 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----54229 54229 54229 20252025 54229 54229 54229 54229 1111 1111 232232232232 AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 54229----2025 2025 2025 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----54229 2025 20252025 20252025 54229 54229 2025 2025 2025 September 30,,,, 2025 Date of decision: September 30 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: 20252025 20252025 September 30 September 30 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Anshul Chandra Mishra Anshul Chandra Mishra Haryana State of Haryana versus Petitioner ….Petitioner ….Respondent ….Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Present: Present: Present: for the petitioner. Mr. Amarsh Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ***** ***** ***** ***** Present petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.35 dated the petitioner in case bearing FIR registered for the dated 28.01.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section ences punishable under Sections 22, 29, 61, 85 Narcotic Drugs and 22, 29, 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) Psychotropic Substances at Police Station (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala. Baldev Nagar, Ambala. 2. The gravamen of allegations against on allegations against the petitioner is that on 28.01.2025, a police patrolling party, 28.01.2025, a police patrolling party, 28.01.2025, a police patrolling party, 28.01.2025, a police patrolling party, recovered 24,000 recovered 24,000 recovered 24,000 recovered 24,000 tablets of tablets of tablets of tablets of of the Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride Atropine Sulphate from co-accused of the Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride Atropine Sulphate Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride Atropine Sulphate petitioner, namely, , namely, Mohit Singh. The said contraband was found in three contraband was found in three separate parcels—6,000 tablets in parcel Mark separate parcels - 6,000 tablets in parcel Mark-A, 6,000 tablets in parcel Mark- B, and 12,000 tablets in parcel Mark-C—collectively weighing B, and 12,000 tablets in parcel Mark . collectively weighing 1 kg 528 grams. Anshul Chandra Mishra (petitioner herein) Anshul Chandra Mishra has been implicated on the (petitioner herein) has been implicated on the 2222 2025 54229----2025 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----54229 20252025 54229 54229 disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused, namely, Mohit Singh, alleging stated that he had procured the tablets from the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 3.01.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Mohit Singh. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner is a qualified pharmacist engaged in business at Hardoi (U.P.). Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner had in fact sold only 18,000 tablets to co-accused Mohit Singh, who was a regular customer at his medical shop. The petitioner had himself purchased the said 18,000 tablets from Munish Agencies against a valid invoice dated 25.01.2025, which also bears the batch numbers corresponding to the medicines allegedly recovered from the co-accused. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner received a sum of ₹17,700/- towards this transaction through UPI payment, which was initiated from the bank account of Mohit Singh’s brother, and that the petitioner earned merely ₹599/- as profit therefrom. Learned counsel has also iterated that the petitioner has no knowledge about the source from which co-accused procured the remaining 6,000 tablets, and therefore, he cannot be linked with any illegal activity beyond the legitimate sale of 18,000 tablets to Mohit Singh. Learned counsel has also iterated that each tablet contains only 2.5 mg of Diphenoxylate, and thus, the 18,000 tablets admittedly sold by the petitioner would contain a total of only 45 grams of Diphenoxylate. Learned counsel Hira Singh and relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hira Singh and Hira Singh and Hira Singh and 3333 2025 54229----2025 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----54229 20252025 54229 54229