Rahul Dwivedi vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that all the applicants are not entitled to bail at this stage. For Rahul Dwivedi, the Court noted his criminal antecedents, including four cases related to the NDPS Act, and prima facie circumstances showing his involvement, along with the quantity of seized cough syrup. For Sumit Kesri, the Court found him involved in the illegal supply and sale despite possessing a pharmaceutical license, issuing bills for different companies linked to other co-accused, and having two other similar offences registered against him. For Amol Tiwari, the Court found direct involvement, noting the large quantity of cough syrup transported in a manner deviating from standard pharmaceutical delivery, and his eight criminal cases, two under the NDPS Act. For Anirudh Singh, the Court held that the notarized agreement for renting his vehicle to a co-accused did not prove his innocence or complete oblivion, especially given the co-accused's criminal past and the lack of evidence of rent payment. The Court emphasized that the seized cough syrup bottles were recovered from the vehicle owned by Anirudh Singh. The Court concluded that considering the overall facts and circumstances, bail could not be granted.

Facts

These are four bail applications (MCrC Nos. 46815, 44323, 49529, and 50010 of 2025) filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicants are seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 223/2025 registered at Police Station Mauganj, District Mauganj, for offences under the Drugs Control Act and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution alleges the recovery of 2160 bottles of 'Onrex' cough syrup, containing 10mg of codeine phosphate per bottle, from the possession of co-accused persons. The seized vehicle, a Toyota Glanza, was found to be owned by Anirudh Singh (applicant). The applicants' involvement is alleged through their memorandums and disclosures by co-accused, linking them to the procurement, sale, and transportation of the cough syrup. The dispute involves the alleged illegal possession and transportation of a controlled substance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to bail given their alleged involvement in the illegal procurement, sale, and transportation of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, and considering their criminal antecedents (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 5/13 of the Drugs Control Act and Sections 8A(C), 21, 22 of the NDPS Act). Petitioner's arguments (collectively, as the court decided analogously): - Rahul Dwivedi: Nothing recovered from his possession; no incriminating evidence; made accused solely on co-accused's memorandum. - Sumit Kesri: Authorized dealer with a license; purchased bottles via bill and invoice after paying GST; transaction was cash-based; no other incriminating evidence. - Amol Tiwari: Purchased cough syrup from Sumit Kesri; GST paid bill and invoice with a license produced by Sumit Kesri were evident. - Anirudh Singh: Owner of the seized vehicle; gave it on rent to a co-accused via a notarized agreement and was unaware of its illegal use. Revenue/State's arguments (collectively): - Sufficient evidence shows direct involvement of applicants. - Applicants have significant criminal antecedents, including cases under the NDPS Act, indicating a pattern of illegal involvement. - The agreements and bills produced by applicants are attempts to save themselves and do not prove innocence. - The large quantity of seized cough syrup and its transportation method suggest illegal activity.