Aslam Rao vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Aslam Rao, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in NCB Crime Case No. 4/2025. The case, registered on February 7, 2025, involves offenses under Sections 8, 8(A), 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27-A, 27-B, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The complaint details significant recoveries of commercial quantities of contraband, including Tramadol Hydrochloride, Codeine Phosphate, and Alprazolam, from various locations between February 7, 2025, and November 16, 2025. The petitioner was initially not named in the FIR but was implicated in a supplementary complaint dated March 10, 2026, as the proprietor of M/s R J Pharma, allegedly involved in procuring and supplying Tramadol Tablets. The prosecution relies on digital evidence, including chats and call records, between the petitioner and another accused.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court found merit in the submissions that granting anticipatory bail at this juncture could impede effective investigation and frustrate legitimate investigative efforts. It emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief not to be granted routinely, but reserved for exceptional circumstances. The Court considered the magnitude and nature of the offense, the role attributed to the accused, and the need for fair and free investigation. It noted that offenses under the NDPS Act, especially those involving commercial quantities, are treated with heightened seriousness due to their deleterious effect on public health and societal order. The Court found no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner and that the preliminary investigation appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Anil Sharma, the Court stated that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented and crucial for disinterring useful information and materials that might be concealed. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of his involvement in the procurement and supply of psychotropic substances? The petitioner argued that the allegations against him are concocted and improbable, and he has been falsely implicated. He contended that no specific allegations were made against him in the initial complaint, and his name appeared only in a supplementary complaint. He asserted that he conducted business through M/s R J Pharma against duly generated invoices and paid applicable GST, and no recovery was made from him. He claimed to be a bonafide businessman operating under a valid drug license, which was surrendered in August 2024, after which he ceased pharmaceutical business activities. He further argued that his custodial interrogation is not warranted as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered, and he is unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence. The respondent (NCB) argued that the petitioner's role extends beyond ordinary commercial transactions to active facilitation of illegal diversion, concealment of psychotropic substances through bogus entities, generation of sham invoices, coordination with co-accused, and evasion of investigation, making him an integral part of a larger criminal conspiracy. They cited the dismissal of SLPs against a similar order declining anticipatory bail to a co-accused and emphasized that granting anticipatory bail would impede effective investigation. The respondent also highlighted the seriousness of offenses under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantities and the need for custodial interrogation.
Sections Cited
Section 482, Sections 8, 8(A), 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27-A, 27-B, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22, Section 27A, Section 29, Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2 CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31330 31330 31330 31330-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
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. Sr. Sr. Sr. No. No. No. No. Date of Seizure Date of Seizure Date of Seizure Date of Seizure Place of Seizure Place of Seizure Place of Seizure Place of Seizure Drug seized Drug seized Drug seized Drug seized 1. 07.02.2025 At Peer Baba Dargaah, Thathiya Near Petrol Pump, Jandiala Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar 5,000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 2. 08/09.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 16,860 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 3. 09.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 187 bottles of Barcadin (with codeine) 100ml and 140 bottles of CSP (with codeine) 100 ml. 4. 15.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 80.720 Kgs of Tramadol Hydrochloride loose tablets 5. 17 to 28.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 8,89,064 bottles of Codenie Phosphate Cough Syrup 100ml. 6. 28.03.2025 IKON Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. Selaqui, Dehradun 240 tablets of Alprazolam and 1560 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 7. 29.03.2025 Shop No. – F27, Transport Nagar, Sewla Kalan, Dehradun, Uttarkhand. 1,24,200 tabelts of Alproazolam 8. 18 to 20.04.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 11,693 Bottles of Codeine Phosphate Cough Syrup and 2.982 Kgs of White Powder of Tramadol (Suspected). 9. 10 to 17.06.2025 IKON Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., Selaqui, Dehradun 931 packets containing approx. 156,465 bottles of CBCS, approx. 178,9600 tablets of 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 Mouza Ogli, Nahan Road, Kala-amb, Sirmour, HP 1,368 capsules of Tramadol + 16 bottles of Codeine Phosphate Cough syrup 11. 09/ 10.11.2025 M/s Vellinton Healthcare, Vill- Rampur Jatan, Trilokpur Road, Kala- amb, Sirmour, HP 50,000 ampoules (2 ml each) 100 mg Tramadol, 5,000 Vials (10 ml each) Midazolam, 12.060 Kg of Tramadol HCL, 0.300 Kg of Midazolam Hydrochloride, 0.980 Kg of Lorazepam, 0.570 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
12.11.2025 to 16.11.2025 M/s Digital Vision, 176 Mouza Ogli, Nahan Road, Kala-amb, 12 lakhs tablets of NRx/ Psychotropic medicine and 150.62 Kg of NRx/ Psychotropic Raw materials, 23.674 Kg of Dispensed Psychotropic MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
3 CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31330 31330 31330 31330-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
Sirmour, HP Raw materials, 165.840 Kg of Compressed/ coated Psychotropic Tablets,
10 Kg Psychotropic Granules Powder Substance and 573.100 Kg of Tramadol HCL Granules (mixture ready for filing in capsules) bulk
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further contended that no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in the detailed complaint dated 05.08.2025 presented before the Sessions Court. It has been argued that the petitioner was named for the first time in the supplementary complaint dated 10.03.2026, wherein it has been alleged that, being the proprietor of M/s R J Pharma, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, the petitioner procured Tramadol Tablets from IKON Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. and Chandra Medicos and thereafter supplied the same to M/s Tiwari Medical Agencies, Dehradun and M/s Maa Jagdamba Medicos. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution has relied upon certain chats exchanged during the period from 06.10.2024 to 28.11.2024, as well as incoming and outgoing calls on 13.11.2024, 16.11.2024, 27.11.2024 and 28.11.2024, between the present petitioner and Praful Prakash Sharma (whose mobile handset was seized during the investigation). It has further been argued that M/s Tiwari Medical Agencies, Dehradun and M/s Maa Jagdamba Medicos are alleged to be shell firms existing only on paper. However, the petitioner had no knowledge of the said firms allegedly being non-existent. It has been contended that the petitioner, in his capacity as proprietor of M/s R J Pharma, effected the supplies only against duly generated invoices and also duly discharged the applicable GST MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
4 CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31330 31330 31330 31330-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
liability thereon. Learned counsel has argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. It has been urged that the petitioner is a bonafide businessman and was carrying business strictly in accordance with law and under a valid drug licence. It has been further urged that the valid licenes No.UA-DEH-135231 and UA-DEH-135232 dated 26.09.2023 in respect of M/s R J Pharma have already been surrendered in August 2024, vide Inward Application No.BF-151004 dated 05.08.2024 and thereafter, the petitioner had not performed any pharmaceutical business activity. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner apprehends his arrest on false charges. It has been further argued that there is no material on record to show complicity of the petitioner with the alleged recovery of the contraband. Learned counsel has iterated that there is no allegation that the petitioner manufactured, stored, financed, transported or knowingly diverted any narcotic or psychotropic substance into illicit channels. It has been urged that the entire prosecution case rests on documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the investigating agency.
Learned counsel has further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer warranted as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 28.05.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned counsel has opposed MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
5 CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31330 31330 31330 31330-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature, as it pertains to involvement of commercial quantity under NDPS Act. It has been stated in Paras-25 to 33 of the aforesaid reply as under: “SPECIFIC ROLE OF THE PETITIONER SPECIFIC ROLE OF THE PETITIONER SPECIFIC ROLE OF THE PETITIONER SPECIFIC ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:
That the present petitioner is not a mere innocent license holder or ordinary pharmaceutical trader as falsely projected in the present petition, but is an active participant and facilitator in the organized interstate syndicate engaged in illegal diversion and circulation of psychotropic substances under the garb of pharmaceutical business.
That during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s R.J. Pharma situated at Mehuwala Mafi, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and was knowingly supplying pharmaceutical products including Tramadol preparations to fictitious/shell entities namely M/s Tiwari Medical Agencies and M/s Maa Jagdamba Medicose. Investigation has categorically established that the said firms had no genuine physical existence and were being operated merely as paper entities for illegal diversion of psychotropic medicines into illicit channels.
The copy of Panchnama dated 08.02.2025 is annexed as Annexure R-7 and copy of field verification panchnama dated 27.05.2025 and the report dated 27.05.2025 received from the concerned authority of the State Drug Controller, Rajasthan is annexed as Annexure-R-8. 27. That the investigation has further revealed that during the year 2024, the petitioner-Aslam Rao Proprietor of M/s R J Pharma had procured 31,95,000 Tramadol Tablets + 1,57,980 strips of Tramadol Tablets from M/s Ikon Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. Dehradun whose directors and the co-accused Ashish Verma, Mradul Agrawal and Dinesh Pandey were arrested for their involvement in illicit diversion of Psychotropic medicines, and the petitioner through his firm M/s R.J. Pharma further supplied approximately 31,95,000 Tramadol tablets to M/s Tiwari Medical Agencies and approximately 1,57,980 strips (15,79,800 tablets) of Tramadol to M/s Maa Jagdamba Medicose in the year 2024 and 1,21,460 strips (12,14,600 tablets) of Tramadol to M/s Maa Jagdamba Medicose in the year 2023. The magnitude and volume of such transactions clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was consciously facilitating the illegal diversion and circulation of psychotropic substances on a commercial scale.
That digital forensic examination conducted during investigation further disclosed WhatsApp chats and electronic communication exchanged between co-accused Praful Prakash Sharma and the present petitioner from 06.10.2024 till 28.11.2024 concerning supply transactions, consignments, of invoices and movement pharmaceutical products between Ikon Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., R.J. Pharma and Tiwari Medical Agencies. The said electronic evidence clearly establishes active coordination, continuous business dealings and conscious nexus of the petitioner with the illegal supply chain. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
6 CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31330 31330 31330 31330-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
Copy of WhatsApp Chat between Aslam Rao and the co- accused Praful Prakash Sharma is annexed as Annexure R-9. 29. That the petitioner was not dealing with legitimate pharmaceutical distributors but was deliberately supplying medicines to shell entities whose operators namely Praful Prakash Sharma and Meera Tiwari have already been arrested in the present case. The petitioner knowingly generated invoices and facilitated movement pharmaceutical consignments in favour of such bogus entities despite absence of any legitimate business operations at the addresses of the said firms
That pursuant to incriminating evidence surfacing during investigation, search proceedings were conducted at the premises/residence of the petitioner situated at Mehuwala Mafi, Dehradun, wherein incriminating documents including GST invoices, E-way bills, banking records and other records related to the applicant were recovered and seized under panchnama proceedings.
That despite issuance of repeated notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act dated 21.08.2025, 28.08.2025 and 24.10.2025 directing the petitioner to join investigation, the petitioner deliberately failed to appear before the Investigating Agency and continuously evaded investigation. Such deliberate non-cooperation and abscondence clearly establish guilty mind and conscious involvement of the petitioner in the organized psychotropic diversion racket.
That due to persistent evasion and deliberate concealment by the petitioner, the respondent-NCB was constrained to obtain Non- Bailable Warrants against him from the competent Court. Warrants dated 18.12.2025 and 17.01.2026 were issued against the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, however the petitioner again absconded and avoided execution proceedings.
That the role of the petitioner is therefore not limited to mere supply of medicines through ordinary commercial transactions, but extends to active facilitation of illegal diversion, concealment of movement of psychotropic substances through bogus entities, generation of sham invoices, coordination with co-accused persons and deliberate evasion of investigation, thereby making him an integral part of the larger criminal conspiracy punishable under Sections 22, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act.”
It has been iterated that in case the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere/ intimidate the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
7 CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31330 31330 31330 31330-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific. The petitioner is involved in a case pertaining to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. The quantity recovered clearly attracts the rigours of the relevant provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Considering the magnitude of the recovery, the possibility of the petitioner’s involvement in an organized illegal trade cannot be ruled out. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper effective investigation. The petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional grounds for the grant of such relief. It has been specifically stated in the aforesaid reply filed by the respondent – NCB that the role attributed to the petitioner is not limited to mere supply of medicines through ordinary commercial transactions, but extends to active facilitation of illegal diversion, concealment of movement of psychotropic substances through bogus entities, generation of sham invoices, coordination with co-accused persons and deliberate evasion of investigation, thereby making him an integral part of the larger criminal conspiracy punishable under Sections 22, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The anticipatory bail plea of somewhat similarly placed co- accused, namely, Parshotam Lal Goyal was declined by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2026 16.02.2026 16.02.2026 16.02.2026 passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-59063 59063 59063 59063-2025 2025 2025 2025. It is not in dispute before this Court that the SLPs against the abovementioned order stand dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Having regard to the nature of accusations and stage of investigation, this Court finds merit in the submissions that grant of anticipatory MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
8 CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31330 31330 31330 31330-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
bail to the petitioner, at this juncture, may impede effective investigation and frustrate legitimate investigative efforts.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between protecting individual rights and safeguarding societal interest(s). The extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine and is reserved for exceptional circumstances where the Court is satisfied that the arrest would be unjustified or motivated. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression.
Offences under NDPS Act, particularly, those involving commercial quantity is treated with heightened seriousness owing to their deleterious effect on public health and societal order. The societal interest in ensuring effective investigation and prosecution of such offences assumes greater significance. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma [State State v. Anil Sharma [State State v. Anil Sharma [State State v. Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC SCC SCC SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
9 CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31330 31330 31330 31330-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
“6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE August 03 August 03 August 03 August 03, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.