Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Gupta, Director of ADDOM Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, sought regular bail in FIR No. 34 dated 02.02.2025, registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR stemmed from the recovery of 234,390 Alprazolam tablets from Hukam Chand and Jarnail Ram. The contraband was found in boxes bearing the petitioner's company name. The petitioner claimed the medicines were sold to Satguru Medicos and C.S. Pharmaceuticals, and that their diversion into Punjab was without his knowledge. He also argued that his arrest was vitiated due to non-furnishing of grounds of arrest prior to custody. The State contended that backward and forward linkages were investigated, leading to the nomination of other accused, and that the co-accused disclosed procurement of the consignment for sale within Punjab.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner could not derive benefit from the Supreme Court's directive in Mihir Rajesh Shah regarding the furnishing of grounds of arrest, as his arrest predated that judgment. The Court noted that the petitioner had not placed on record any material to show that the alleged non-supply of written grounds of arrest had prejudiced him or impaired his ability to defend himself, applying the "prejudice-oriented test" from State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan. While acknowledging that the lapse in not furnishing grounds in writing could not be brushed aside, the Court opined that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the material on record, and the statutory rigor under the NDPS Act, this ground alone would not justify the grant of bail at this stage. Therefore, the petition for bail was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the alleged non-furnishing of grounds of arrest prior to his custody, as per the Supreme Court's directives in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Gujarat and Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the non-furnishing of grounds of arrest prior to his custody vitiated the arrest. He relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Priti Kumari v. State of Punjab and Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India, arguing that such an infraction entitles him to bail. He also argued that his business was conducted in accordance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and any subsequent misuse of the consignment should not be attributed to him. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner was arrested prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah, which directed that grounds of arrest operate 'henceforth'. They further contended that the petitioner had not placed on record any remand application or orders to examine if the objection regarding non-communication of grounds was raised. The State also referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, emphasizing a "prejudice-oriented test" for assessing violations of procedural safeguards, and noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any prejudice caused by the alleged non-supply of written grounds of arrest. The State also highlighted the gravity of the allegations and the statutory rigor under the NDPS Act.