Rahul vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

These petitions, CRM-M-73555-2025, CRM-M-1694-2026, and CRM-M-9466-2026, were filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail for the petitioners during the pendency of trial. The case arises from FIR No. 290 dated 14.05.2025, registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, Faridabad, under Section 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that Boby Sharma was apprehended with 24,000 capsules of Tramadol. His disclosure statement implicated Ibrahim @ Raju, owner of "Vaishno Pharma", and Rahul, an associate who invested in the business. Rajnish Sharma was identified as the supplier. The petitioners Rahul and Ibrahim @ Raju had been in jail for over a year. Boby Sharma's counsel sought withdrawal of his bail petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The court noted that Ibrahim @ Raju holds a chemist shop license and Rahul had transferred Rs. 1,33,294/- to Vaishno Pharma's GST account and Rs. 37,400/- to the supplier, Rajnish Sharma.

Held

The Court dismissed the bail petitions of Rahul and Ibrahim @ Raju. The Court found that a huge quantity of Tramadol capsules had been recovered and that there was prima facie involvement of both Rahul and Ibrahim @ Raju in the alleged business. The reasoning was based on the fact that Ibrahim @ Raju held a license to run a chemist shop, and Rahul had invested money in the business, evidenced by significant financial transfers to the firm's GST account and to the supplier of the capsules. The Court concluded that these facts did not provide substantial reason to entertain their prayer for regular bail at that stage. The petition filed by Boby Sharma was dismissed as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, Rahul and Ibrahim @ Raju, are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, considering they have been incarcerated for over one year and their alleged involvement in the business of intoxicant capsules? Petitioner's arguments (Rahul and Ibrahim @ Raju): The petitioners argued that they are entitled to regular bail as they have been in jail for more than one year. They likely contended that their involvement was not direct in the commission of the offence or that the quantity recovered did not attract stringent provisions, and that the financial transactions were related to legitimate business activities, including GST payments. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State likely argued against granting bail, emphasizing the huge quantity of Tramadol capsules recovered, the prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the alleged business of intoxicant capsules, and the financial transactions pointing towards their complicity in the illegal trade. The State would have highlighted the disclosure statements and the recovery made from Boby Sharma as evidence against the petitioners.