Manish Kumar Kahnani @ Munna vs. Union Of INDIA, Narcotics Control Bureau Chandigarh Zonal Unit Mohali
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Manish Kumar Kahnani, sought regular bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated, with the primary evidence against him being the disclosure statements of co-accused. He asserted he runs a legitimate retail business with GST registration and supplied goods to the son of a co-accused in the regular course of business. He also argued the recovery of 1805.25 kgs of poppy husk was from a vehicle unconnected to him, and he had been in custody since May 26, 2023, with no prior criminal record. The respondent (NCB) countered that the petitioner was the principal supplier, citing financial trails including ₹1,00,00,000/- transferred to his and his family's accounts by a co-accused's son, and ₹85.20 lakhs recovered from his residence.
Held
The Court held that the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic substance (1805.25 kgs of poppy husk) brought the case within the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, imposing statutory restrictions on bail. The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were not limited to mere association but were supported by substantive material indicating his prima facie involvement as a key supplier. The financial transactions, specifically the ₹1,00,00,000/- deposited by the co-accused's son and the ₹85.20 lakhs seized from the petitioner's residence, were considered grave and incriminating circumstances that went beyond speculative links. The Court found the petitioner's justification of these dealings as legitimate business untenable given their magnitude and nature. The Court concluded that the mere passage of time in custody or partial trial progress could not dilute the seriousness of the allegations or outweigh the material indicating complicity in a narcotics distribution network. Therefore, the Court dismissed the bail petition, stating that anything observed was not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the disclosure statements of co-accused, without independent corroboration, are admissible evidence against the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail under the NDPS Act? (Question of law). 2. Whether the financial transactions, including ₹1,00,00,000/- transferred to the petitioner and his family and ₹85.20 lakhs seized from his residence, constitute sufficient material to prima facie establish the petitioner's involvement as a principal supplier in drug trafficking, thereby invoking the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act? (Question of mixed law and fact). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that disclosure statements of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration. He argued that his financial dealings were part of a legitimate business, evidenced by his GST registration and ledger accounts. He also highlighted his long period in custody and the slow pace of the trial. Respondent's arguments: The NCB argued that the petitioner was not an incidental figure but the principal supplier. They presented financial trails, including substantial transfers and cash seizure, as prima facie evidence of his involvement. They also submitted that the trial was progressing expeditiously with several witnesses already examined.
Sections Cited
Section 37, Section 8, Section 15, Section 25, Section 27A, Section 29, Section 60, Section 62
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6848-2025 Date of decision: 3rd July, 2025 Manish Kumar Kahnani @ Munna … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Satnam S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harmandeep S. Sullar, Advocate for the respondent/NCB.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case bearing No.11/2023 dated 13.05.2023 under Sections 8, 15, 25, 27A, 29, 60 and 62 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station NCB, U.T. Chandigarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, with the only material against him being the disclosure statements made by the co-accused, which, in the absence of any independent corroboration, are inadmissible in evidence. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen running a small retail business under the name “Pavan Karyana shop” in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, holding a valid GST registration (Annexure P-4), and that goods were supplied in the regular course of business to the son of one of the co-accused, RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.07.08 15.46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-6848-2025
2 namely Gurbej Singh, as is evident from the ledger account maintained in his name annexed as Annexure P-5. 3. It has been additionally submitted by the learned counsel that the recovery in question (1805.25 kgs of poppy husk) was affected from a vehicle with which the petitioner has no demonstrable connection. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.05.2023 and that the trial is unlikely to conclude shortly. Hence, the petitioner in the aforementioned facts and circumstances deserves to be enlarged on bail, more so when he has no previous criminal antecedents.
Per contra, learned standing counsel for the NCB has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite by submitting that the petitioner is not a mere bystander or an incidental figure in the case, but is, in fact, the principal supplier of the contraband in question. It has been pointed out that during investigation, following the apprehension of the co-accused from whom the alleged recovery was affected, a financial trail has been uncovered which prima facie establishes the petitioner’s active involvement in that trafficking of narcotics. Specifically, it has been brought to the attention of this Court that a sum of approximately ₹1,00,00,000/- was transferred into the bank accounts of the petitioner and his close family members by the son of co-accused Kabal Singh. Additionally, ₹85.20 lakhs, suspected to be proceeds from drug trafficking, were recovered during a raid conducted at the residence of the petitioner.
The standing counsel for NCB has further informed the Court that the challan has already been presented, and charges were framed on 23.01.2024. The trial is progressing expeditiously, with 6 out of 21 RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.07.08 15.46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-6848-2025
3 prosecution witnesses already examined, and 5 more witnesses summoned for the upcoming hearing fixed on 11.08.2025. A prayer has therefore been made for dismissing the instant petition in view of the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as well as the huge quantity of contraband recovered in the instant case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.
The recovery in the present case pertains to a commercial quantity of narcotic substance – 1805.25 kgs of poppy husk – which falls well within the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, thereby imposing statutory restrictions on the grant of bail. The allegations against the petitioner are not limited to mere association with the co-accused. Instead, there exists substantive material on record pointing towards his prima facie involvement as a key supplier in the chain of illicit drug trafficking.
The financial transactions traced to the petitioner and his family members, particularly ₹1,00,00,000/- deposited by the son of the co-accused, coupled with the seizure of ₹85.20 lakhs from the residence of the petitioner, constitute grave and incriminating circumstances that go well beyond the scope of speculative or coincidental links.
While the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to justify the financial dealings as being part of a legitimate business, the magnitude, nature, and manner of the transactions, as revealed during investigation, render such a claim untenable at this stage.
The mere passage of time in custody or the partial progress of the trial cannot, in the facts of this case, dilute the seriousness of the RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.07.08 15.46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-6848-2025
4 allegations or outweigh the compelling material indicating the complicity of the petitioner in a well organized narcotics distribution network.
In view of the above and considering the serious nature of the allegations, and the ongoing trial which is proceeding at a satisfactory pace, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismiss. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE July 3, 2025 rps Whether speaking/reasoned
Yes/No Whether reportable
Yes/No RATTAN PAL SINGH 2025.07.08 15.46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
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.