Boby Sharma vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

These petitions under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 439 Cr.P.C.) sought regular bail for petitioners Rahul, Ibrahim @ Raju, and Boby Sharma, who were booked in FIR No. 290 dated 14.05.2025 under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, Faridabad. The prosecution alleged that Boby Sharma was apprehended with 24,000 Tramadol capsules. His disclosure statement implicated Ibrahim @ Raju, owner of 'Vaishno Pharma', and Rahul, who had invested in the business. Rajnish Sharma was identified as the supplier. The petitioners had been in jail for over a year. Boby Sharma's counsel withdrew his bail petition. The court noted Ibrahim @ Raju held a chemist license and Rahul had transferred Rs. 1,33,294/- to Vaishno Pharma's GST account via UPI and Rs. 37,400/- to the supplier, Rajnish Sharma.

Held

The Court dismissed the bail petitions of Rahul and Ibrahim @ Raju. The reasoning was based on the prima facie involvement of both petitioners in the alleged business of transporting and dealing in a huge quantity of Tramadol capsules. The Court took note of the financial transactions, specifically Rahul's transfer of Rs. 1,33,294/- to the GST account of Vaishno Pharma through multiple UPI transactions and another payment of Rs. 37,400/- to the supplier, Rajnish Sharma. The fact that Ibrahim @ Raju held a chemist license and was allegedly involved in the business, along with Rahul's financial contributions, indicated their complicity. The Court found no substantial reason to entertain their prayer for regular bail at this stage, given the gravity of the recovery and their alleged roles. The ratio decidendi is that significant financial involvement and prima facie complicity in drug trafficking, even after prolonged incarceration, may not warrant bail if the evidence suggests a serious offense. The petitions were dismissed.

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 a year, given their alleged involvement in the transportation and business of narcotic substances (Tramadol capsules)? Petitioner's Argument (Rahul and Ibrahim @ Raju): The primary contention for the petitioners is that they have spent more than one year in custody, which, coupled with the fact that the trial is pending, warrants the grant of regular bail. They argue that their continued detention is no longer necessary for the investigation or to prevent them from absconding or tampering with evidence. Respondent's Argument (State of Haryana): The State argued that a huge quantity of Tramadol capsules was recovered, and there is prima facie involvement of both Rahul and Ibrahim @ Raju in the alleged business. The court noted the financial transactions, including transfers to the GST account of Vaishno Pharma and payments to the supplier, as evidence of their complicity, suggesting that bail should not be granted at this stage.