Anurag Kumar Sinha vs. State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi

Facts

The petitioner, Anurag Kumar Sinha, sought regular bail in FIR No. 374/2022, registered under Sections 22/29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution's case stemmed from seizures of psychotropic substances from co-accused Rishi Kumar Singh and Kuldeep Kumar on December 13, 2022, leading to the petitioner's arrest on December 15, 2022. A subsequent raid at the petitioner's office-cum-godown on December 16, 2022, recovered medicines containing psychotropic substances. The petitioner claimed to have a valid drug license for his firm, M/s. Chitra Surgi Pharma, and produced purchase invoices for some substances, stating that GST was paid on relevant transactions. The prosecution contended that the petitioner failed to show purchase invoices for all seized items and that some quantities were recovered from his godown.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding prima facie reasonable grounds to believe he might not be guilty of the offence. The Court noted discrepancies in the batch numbers and the extent to which the prosecution had established the linkage of recovered substances back to the petitioner. It acknowledged that the issue of sales invoices would be determined during the trial. The Court was influenced by the petitioner's argument that he possessed a valid drug license for his firm and had paid GST on relevant transactions, citing *Abdul Qaider v. Narcotic Control Bureau* to support the principle that a valid license is a significant factor at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court considered the petitioner's lack of previous involvements, the long period of custody (since December 15, 2022), and the fact that no witnesses had been examined even after two years since the FIR registration. Relying on several Supreme Court judgments concerning prolonged custody, the Court deemed it imprudent to keep the petitioner incarcerated indefinitely. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were for the purpose of deciding the bail application and not an expression on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has established reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty of the offence under Sections 22/29 of the NDPS Act, considering the alleged discrepancies in batch numbers and the extent of linkage of recovered substances to him? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act). 2. Whether the petitioner's possession of a valid drug license and payment of GST on certain transactions negate the prosecution's case regarding the seized psychotropic substances? (Mixed question of law and fact). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that only one batch of 'Proxywel Spas' was recovered from his godown, while other medicines were recovered from co-accused. He emphasized that his firm, M/s. Chitra Surgi Pharma, holds a valid drug license and that GST invoices were provided for the relevant batch (PCCIH292), indicating legitimate acquisition and payment of taxes. He relied on *Abdul Qaider v. Narcotic Control Bureau* (2024:DHC:3145) regarding the significance of a valid license and the court's limited scope in examining forged documents at the bail stage, and *Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu* (2021) 4 SCC 1 and *Suliaman Agha Saihoon v. Narcotics Control Bureau* (2024 SCC OnLine Del 3309) concerning disclosure statements and CDR connectivity. Respondent's Arguments: The State contended that the petitioner failed to show purchase invoices for the seized substances and that certain quantities were recovered from his godown. The State also pointed to audio files recovered from mobile phones, allegedly concerning consignments of psychotropic substances.