Anmol Tiwari vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed all the bail applications. For Rahul Dwivedi, the Court noted that while he was implicated on the basis of a co-accused's memorandum, other circumstances indicated his involvement. His significant criminal antecedents, including four cases under the NDPS Act, along with the quantity of seized cough syrup, led to the dismissal. For Sumit Kesri, the Court found him involved in the illegal supply and sale of the contraband despite possessing a pharmaceutical license. His issuance of bills for different companies linked to co-accused, coupled with two other similar offenses, justified the dismissal. Amol Tiwari's direct involvement was established, and despite claims of valid purchase, the large quantity transported in a manner deviating from standard pharmaceutical delivery methods, along with his eight criminal cases (two under NDPS Act), led to the dismissal. For Anirudh Singh, the Court found that the notarized rent agreement for his vehicle did not prove his innocence or complete ignorance of its illegal use, especially given the criminal past of the co-accused to whom he rented it and the lack of evidence of rent payment. The recovery of a large quantity of contraband from his vehicle was deemed sufficient reason to deny bail.

Facts

These are bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Rahul Dwivedi, Sumit Kesri, Amol Tiwari, and Anirudh Singh. They 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 Act (NDPS Act). The prosecution alleges the recovery of 2160 bottles of Onrex cough syrup, containing codeine phosphate, from a vehicle. The applicants are alleged to be involved in the procurement, sale, and transportation of these illicitly possessed cough syrup bottles. Anirudh Singh is the owner of the seized vehicle. The applicants' involvement is based on co-accused's memorandums and evidence gathered during the investigation, including alleged criminal antecedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to bail given their alleged involvement in the illegal procurement, sale, and transportation of controlled substances (cough syrup containing codeine phosphate), considering their criminal antecedents and the quantity of the seized contraband, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the Drugs Control Act? Petitioner's Arguments: - Rahul Dwivedi: No recovery was made from his possession, and there is no incriminating evidence against him. He is implicated solely on the memorandum of a co-accused. - Sumit Kesri: He is an authorized dealer with a requisite license for pharmaceutical products and purchased the cough syrup bottles with bills and invoices after paying GST. His involvement is based only on co-accused's disclosure, and the mobile number disclosed by them does not match his seized mobile. - Amol Tiwari: He purchased cough syrup bottles from Sumit Kesri. While he failed to produce a license for the purchase, Sumit Kesri provided GST-paid bills and invoices with a license. - Anirudh Singh: He is the owner of the seized vehicle, which he gave on rent to a co-accused via a notarized agreement, and was unaware of its illegal use for transporting cough syrup. Revenue/State's Arguments: - There is sufficient evidence showing direct involvement of each applicant in the commission of the offence. - All applicants have criminal antecedents, with several cases related to the NDPS Act registered against them, disentitling them to bail. - The agreements and bills produced by the applicants are attempts to save themselves and do not prove innocence.