Rakesh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh, sought regular bail in FIR No. 39 dated 14.02.2025, registered under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Civil Line, District Sonipat, Haryana. The prosecution alleged that 1000 bottles of Onrex Codeine Phosphate Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup were recovered from a co-accused, Sunny, whose disclosure statement implicated Rakesh as the supplier. Rakesh produced a business license from the Government of NCT of Delhi, valid until 24.06.2029, for his firm Om Traders. He also presented purchase bills for the syrup and GST invoices showing its sale to another Delhi-based company. The State's initial status report was silent on these submissions. The High Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Sonipat, to examine the issue and file an affidavit. Subsequently, the State counsel informed the Court that verification indicated both the petitioner and the recipient of the syrup possessed valid licenses.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that the prosecution's case was built upon the disclosure statement of a co-accused. However, the petitioner presented a valid business license for his firm, Om Traders, and purchase and GST invoices indicating legitimate transactions for the syrup. Crucially, the State, in its subsequent submission, confirmed that both the petitioner and the recipient of the syrup possessed valid licenses. The Court found that the petitioner appeared to have been victimized by being involved in a false case, albeit on a prima facie basis. Therefore, without expressing a conclusive opinion on the merits, the Court granted bail. The Court also directed the Superintendent of Police to examine the truth of the matter and take appropriate action against any official found to have acted with mischief or irresponsibility if the petitioner was indeed falsely implicated. The trial court was directed to decide the case independently based on the evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) given the allegations under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was involved in a false case. He relied on his business license issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, valid for his firm Om Traders, and purchase and GST invoices demonstrating legitimate transactions for the syrup in question. These documents indicated that both he and the recipient of the syrup were licensed to deal with it. Revenue's Arguments: The State, through its counsel, initially filed a status report that did not address the petitioner's submissions. However, on a subsequent date, the State informed the Court that their investigation found that both the petitioner and the recipient of the syrup held valid licenses for its delivery and receipt.