Vinit Chauhan vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Vinit Chauhan, filed a petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 207, dated 03.10.2023, registered under Sections 22, 27, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Section 201 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana. The petitioner claimed no previous criminal antecedents and that he was implicated based on the interrogation of co-accused. The prosecution alleged that 10,000 tablets of tramadol, a contraband, were recovered. The seized contraband bore batch numbers and identifying details indicating it was manufactured by Yadav and Company, Dehradun. Upon inquiry, Yadav and Company allegedly stated that the consignment was sold to the petitioner, a purported chemist in Saharanpur. The petitioner argued he was not a registered chemist and the bill/cash memo was fraudulent as the GST number did not belong to him.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's plea, primarily due to the serious nature of the allegations involving the recovery of 10,000 tablets of tramadol, which constitutes a 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act. The Court noted that the petitioner was absconding and warrants had already been issued for his appearance before the trial court. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the recovered contraband, and the stated necessity of custodial interrogation to investigate the wider drug network, the Court concluded that no grounds were made out for granting anticipatory bail. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, given the allegations of involvement in the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985? The petitioner argued that he had no prior criminal record and was falsely implicated based on the statements of co-accused. He further contended that the bill/cash memo, purportedly showing a sale to him, was fraudulent as the GST number mentioned did not belong to him, and he was not a registered chemist. The petitioner relied on the fact that the seized contraband had identifying marks and was allegedly manufactured by a specific company. The respondent-State argued that the petitioner was absconding, and warrants had been issued for his arrest. They asserted that a co-accused was a close associate of the petitioner and had procured the contraband, which exceeded the threshold for commercial quantity. The State also contended that the manufacturer confirmed the sale to the petitioner against invoices and that custodial interrogation was essential to unearth a larger drug trafficking network, with the petitioner allegedly responsible for dispatching the contraband to Punjab.