Mukesh Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, proprietor of Urmila Pharmaceuticals, sought bail in a case involving alleged illegal purchase and transportation of 2,32,000 bottles of Phensedyl cough syrup over three years. The applicant purchased these from Saili Traders and sold them to five firms: Mahadev Pharma, Kaal Bhairav Pharmaceuticals, Sana Medicals, and Divya Traders. It was later discovered that these firms, despite having drug licenses, were allegedly non-existent and not involved in trade. Some bottles of the same batch numbers were recovered in Tripura and Bihar during illegal transportation. The applicant claims to have transported the syrup via 22 vehicles with e-way bills, but was implicated based on the statement of a manager of one truck owner, who claimed his truck number was incorrectly mentioned in the GST bill and that he never transported medicines from the applicant's firm. The applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since April 9, 2026. The charge sheet has been filed.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant. It reasoned that while the applicant purchased a large quantity of codeine-based cough syrup and allegedly sold it to non-existent firms, and some bottles were recovered in Tripura and Bihar, this alone did not conclusively prove the applicant's involvement in illegal sale or transportation. The Court noted that the applicant is a drug license holder and has produced documents supporting the purchase and sale, including e-way bills for transportation. It also considered that approximately 90,000 bottles of the same batch numbers were accounted for. Furthermore, the charge sheet had been filed, and there was no other material specifically linking the applicant to illegal sale or transportation. The Court took into account the nature of the offense, the evidence, the applicant's complicity, overcrowded jails, and the pendency of cases, referencing judgments from the Apex Court (Kapil Wadhawan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) and this Court (Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.) regarding bail. The Court explicitly stated it was not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the trial, not tampering with evidence, and not indulging in criminal activity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, a licensed drug dealer, is entitled to bail given the allegations of purchasing and selling a large quantity of codeine-based cough syrup to allegedly non-existent firms, which was subsequently recovered during illegal transportation in other states? Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant argued that he is a proprietor of a licensed pharmaceutical firm and has produced documents, including sale invoices and e-way bills, for the purchase and transportation of the cough syrup. He contended that he has no criminal history, the charge sheet has been filed, and custodial interrogation is not required. He also pointed out that he has been implicated based on the statement of only one truck owner's manager, ignoring the 21 other vehicles used for transportation with valid e-way bills. He submitted that about 90,000 bottles of the same batch numbers are accounted for. Contentions of the Revenue (State): The State opposed the bail application, highlighting that the applicant purchased a significant quantity of Phensedyl cough syrup and allegedly transported it to five firms found to be non-existent. The State relied on the statement of a truck owner's manager who denied transporting medicines from the applicant's firm to any stockist or retailer, and stated the truck number was incorrectly mentioned in the GST bill.