Vishal Dhuria vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Vishal Dhuria, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 151 dated May 26, 2023, registered under Sections 22, 22(c), 29, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The FIR stemmed from the recovery of Alprazolam and Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets from co-accused Navdeep Kumar. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but was implicated in Navdeep Kumar's disclosure statement. The petitioner claimed to be a medical store owner from whom the co-accused purchased homeopathic medicines and had deposited Rs. 10,000/- on May 9, 2023. The State opposed the bail, alleging the petitioner had concealed a prior conviction under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and that the bills produced were not genuine, lacking GSTIN/PAN and GST details. The State also highlighted call details between the petitioner and the co-accused and the need for custodial interrogation to trace the supply chain.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The primary reasoning was based on the co-accused's disclosure statement directly implicating the petitioner in the sale of intoxicant tablets under the guise of a homeopathic medical store. This was corroborated by evidence of a Rs. 10,000/- deposit into the petitioner's bank account and extensive call records between the petitioner and the co-accused, indicating a long-standing association. Crucially, the Court noted the petitioner's concealment of a prior conviction under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, where he was convicted for possessing a significant quantity of intoxicant tablets. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, particularly in serious cases involving drug trafficking, where custodial interrogation is imperative to unravel the entire supply chain and identify other potential offenders. The Court found a reasonable apprehension of the petitioner influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or fleeing justice, compounded by the risk of him committing similar offenses, as evidenced by his past conduct. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need to consider the gravity of the accusation, antecedents, possibility of fleeing justice, and likelihood of repeating offenses before granting anticipatory bail. The Court concluded that allowing bail would impede a comprehensive investigation into the drug menace.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of his alleged involvement in the sale of contraband, the recovery of commercial quantity from a co-accused, his prior conviction under the NDPS Act, and the potential for tampering with evidence or fleeing justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR and was implicated solely based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. He asserted he was running a legitimate medical store and was willing to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent's (State of Punjab) arguments: The State argued that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands, having concealed his previous conviction under the NDPS Act. They emphasized that the co-accused explicitly named the petitioner as the source of the contraband, supported by bank transaction evidence and call records. The State also questioned the genuineness of the bills provided by the petitioner, noting the absence of GST details. They stressed the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full supply chain and other involved individuals, citing the commercial quantity of the recovered drugs and the petitioner's past criminal history as reasons to deny bail.