Pawan Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR no. 36 dated 31.01.2025, registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanita (BNS), 2023, and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The FIR alleged the recovery of narcotics and banned drugs from Kamboj Health Care, run by Kashmir Singh and Raj Kumar, who failed to produce valid licenses for practicing allopathy. The petitioner claims to be a wholesale medicine dealer with a valid GST number for the past 10 years, operating 'Pawan Agency' in Hanumangarh Town, Rajasthan, and asserts no connection to the recovered drugs or the premises. He stated his willingness to join the investigation.

Held

The Court held that the petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be allowed. The reasoning was based on the absence of evidence or convincing material to support the prosecution's claim that the petitioner was involved in selling the drugs/medicines to individuals who allegedly visited his shop. Additionally, the Court took into account the undertaking given by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on anticipatory bail, subject to joining the investigation within one week and furnishing personal/surety bonds. The order also stipulated conditions as per Section 482(2) of BNSS, including availability for interrogation and not influencing witnesses. The order would stand cancelled if the petitioner failed to join the investigation within the stipulated period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, considering the allegations of selling banned drugs and the lack of direct recovery from him? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been in the wholesale medicine business for 10 years with a valid GST number and has no association with the drugs recovered from the alleged premises. He argues that no recovery of contraband drugs was made from him, nor is there evidence of him selling drugs to co-accused. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent's arguments: The State opposes anticipatory bail, arguing that 2-3 individuals visited the petitioner's shop where illegal sales were allegedly conducted. The State seeks custodial interrogation to identify these individuals and uncover the full extent of the offense, referencing the list of recovered drugs.