CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 221 DEEPAK BHANDARI UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 dated 01.05.2025 registered with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Amrits Sections 8, 22, 23, 25, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. follows: “On 01.05.2025, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal -9371 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DEEPAK BHANDARI Versus UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate Mr. Jatinder, Advocate and Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Deify Jindal, Advocate and Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate for respondent. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 dated 01.05.2025 registered with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, District Amritsar under Sections 8, 22, 23, 25, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are as “On 01.05.2025, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9371 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 ....Petitioner UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR, NARCOTICS ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Advocate with Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Deify Jindal, Advocate and Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 dated 01.05.2025 registered with the ar Zonal Unit, District Amritsar under Sections 8, 22, 23, 25, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are as “On 01.05.2025, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal 9371 of 2026 .2026 ....Petitioner UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR, NARCOTICS ....Respondent Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 dated 01.05.2025 registered with the ar Zonal Unit, District Amritsar under Facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are as “On 01.05.2025, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- Unit recovered SCF-6, Jawala Estate, Haripura Road, Amritsar. A crime case bearing NCB Crime No.14 dated 01.05.2025, under Section 8, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 was registered against Amit Bhandari. During investigation NCB team conducted raid at Corporate Medicos, Inside Corporate Hospital, Amritsar and recovered 2000 tablets of Tramadol and arrested Rajinder Rajan on 02.05.2025 and also arrested Jatinder Malhotra on 03.05.2025. Another team of NCB Amr Kare Hospital, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on 02.05.2025 and recovered 472 Tablets of Tramadol, but the accused Parveen Kumar, who is sole proprietor of the said firm Life Kare Medicare absconded from the raided place.” 3. submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that, on 01.05.2025, a raid was conducted at the premises of Ballista Pharmaceuticals and 31,900 tablets of tramadol were recovered from co present petitioner. It is a matter of granted bail by the Co further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the alleged raid was conducted, and he has been roped into the present crime only because he is one of the partners in the said firm. He further submitted that his two other partners in the said firm, namely Nabhay Bhandari and Priya Bhandari, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co -9371 of 2026 -2- Unit recovered 31900 tablets of Tramadol from Ballista Pharmaceuticals, 6, Jawala Estate, Haripura Road, Amritsar. A crime case bearing NCB Crime No.14 dated 01.05.2025, under Section 8, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 was registered against Amit Bhandari. During investigation NCB team conducted raid at Corporate Medicos, Inside Corporate Hospital, Amritsar and recovered 2000 tablets of Tramadol and arrested Rajinder Rajan on 02.05.2025 and also arrested Jatinder Malhotra on 03.05.2025. Another team of NCB Amritsar raided at Life Kare Medicare Inside Life Kare Hospital, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on 02.05.2025 and recovered 472 Tablets of Tramadol, but the accused Parveen Kumar, who is sole proprietor of the said firm Life Kare Medicare absconded from the raided place.” Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the only allegation ainst the petitioner is that, on 01.05.2025, a raid was conducted at the premises of Ballista Pharmaceuticals and 31,900 tablets of tramadol were recovered from co-accused Amit Bhandari, who is the real brother of the present petitioner. It is a matter of fact that the said co granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the alleged raid was conducted, and he has been roped into the present crime only because he is one of the partners in the said firm. He further submitted that his two other partners in the said firm, namely Nabhay Bhandari and Priya Bhandari, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co 31900 tablets of Tramadol from Ballista Pharmaceuticals, 6, Jawala Estate, Haripura Road, Amritsar. A crime case bearing NCB Crime No.14 dated 01.05.2025, under Section 8, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 was registered against Amit Bhandari. During investigation of abovesaid case NCB team conducted raid at Corporate Medicos, Inside Corporate Hospital, Amritsar and recovered 2000 tablets of Tramadol and arrested Rajinder Rajan on 02.05.2025 and also arrested Jatinder Malhotra on 03.05.2025. itsar raided at Life Kare Medicare Inside Life Kare Hospital, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on 02.05.2025 and recovered 472 Tablets of Tramadol, but the accused Parveen Kumar, who is sole proprietor of the said firm Life Kare Medicare Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the only allegation ainst the petitioner is that, on 01.05.2025, a raid was conducted at the premises of Ballista Pharmaceuticals and 31,900 tablets of tramadol were accused Amit Bhandari, who is the real brother of the fact that the said co-accused has been ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the alleged raid was conducted, and he has been roped into the present crime only because he is one of the partners in the said firm. He further submitted that his two other partners in the said firm, namely Nabhay Bhandari and Priya Bhandari, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co 31900 tablets of Tramadol from Ballista Pharmaceuticals, 6, Jawala Estate, Haripura Road, Amritsar. A crime case bearing NCB Crime No.14 dated 01.05.2025, under Section 8, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 was of abovesaid case NCB team conducted raid at Corporate Medicos, Inside Corporate Hospital, Amritsar and recovered 2000 tablets of Tramadol and arrested Rajinder Rajan on 02.05.2025 and also arrested Jatinder Malhotra on 03.05.2025. itsar raided at Life Kare Medicare Inside Life Kare Hospital, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar on 02.05.2025 and recovered 472 Tablets of Tramadol, but the accused Parveen Kumar, who is sole proprietor of the said firm Life Kare Medicare Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the only allegation ainst the petitioner is that, on 01.05.2025, a raid was conducted at the premises of Ballista Pharmaceuticals and 31,900 tablets of tramadol were accused Amit Bhandari, who is the real brother of the accused has been ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the alleged raid was conducted, and he has been roped into the present crime only because he is one of the partners in the said firm. He further submitted that his two other partners in the said firm, namely Nabhay Bhandari and Priya Bhandari, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co- PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- ordinate Bench vide order dated 0 has a license to stock, sell, or distribute, issued in the name of his firm, which is valid till 31.03.2027, and a specific condition has been embodied therein whereby the firm has been allowed to stock, sell, or di dosage formulations containing tramadol and tapentadol, with a possession limit of 50,000 solid oral dosage forms of each at a time. He contended that, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the recovery effected from the premises of the fir license, the firm has permission to store 50,000 tablets of tramadol. Therefore, the quantity recovered is much less than the permitted quantity for which the firm possessed the requisite license. He fu one of the co Supreme Court solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not explained to him. To buttress his argument, he produced the arrest memos of co-accused R both are similar and made in a template format. Hence, the petitioner is at parity with the said co not fully explained to him. He further subm antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.06.2025, i.e. more than approximately 10 months; nothing further remains to be recovered from him and the trial may take a lo to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail. 4. respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular ba -9371 of 2026 -3- ordinate Bench vide order dated 04.11.2025. He argued that the petitioner has a license to stock, sell, or distribute, issued in the name of his firm, which is valid till 31.03.2027, and a specific condition has been embodied therein whereby the firm has been allowed to stock, sell, or di dosage formulations containing tramadol and tapentadol, with a possession limit of 50,000 solid oral dosage forms of each at a time. He contended that, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the recovery effected from the premises of the firm was 31,900 tablets of tramadol, whereas, as per the license, the firm has permission to store 50,000 tablets of tramadol. Therefore, the quantity recovered is much less than the permitted quantity for which the firm possessed the requisite license. He fu one of the co-accused, Rajender Rajan, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not explained to him. To buttress his argument, he produced the arrest memos of accused Rajender Rajan and the present petitioner and submitted that both are similar and made in a template format. Hence, the petitioner is at parity with the said co-accused qua the fact that the grounds of arrest were not fully explained to him. He further subm antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.06.2025, i.e. more than approximately 10 months; nothing further remains to be recovered from him and the trial may take a lo to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular ba 4.11.2025. He argued that the petitioner has a license to stock, sell, or distribute, issued in the name of his firm, which is valid till 31.03.2027, and a specific condition has been embodied therein whereby the firm has been allowed to stock, sell, or distribute oral dosage formulations containing tramadol and tapentadol, with a possession limit of 50,000 solid oral dosage forms of each at a time. He contended that, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the recovery effected from the m was 31,900 tablets of tramadol, whereas, as per the license, the firm has permission to store 50,000 tablets of tramadol. Therefore, the quantity recovered is much less than the permitted quantity for which the firm possessed the requisite license. He further submitted that accused, Rajender Rajan, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not explained to him. To buttress his argument, he produced the arrest memos of ajender Rajan and the present petitioner and submitted that both are similar and made in a template format. Hence, the petitioner is at accused qua the fact that the grounds of arrest were not fully explained to him. He further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.06.2025, i.e. more than approximately 10 months; nothing further remains to be recovered from him and the trial may take a long time to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail made by the 4.11.2025. He argued that the petitioner has a license to stock, sell, or distribute, issued in the name of his firm, which is valid till 31.03.2027, and a specific condition has been embodied stribute oral dosage formulations containing tramadol and tapentadol, with a possession limit of 50,000 solid oral dosage forms of each at a time. He contended that, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the recovery effected from the m was 31,900 tablets of tramadol, whereas, as per the license, the firm has permission to store 50,000 tablets of tramadol. Therefore, the quantity recovered is much less than the permitted quantity rther submitted that accused, Rajender Rajan, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not explained to him. To buttress his argument, he produced the arrest memos of ajender Rajan and the present petitioner and submitted that both are similar and made in a template format. Hence, the petitioner is at accused qua the fact that the grounds of arrest were itted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.06.2025, i.e. more than approximately 10 months; nothing ng time to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the il made by the PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is the owner and controlling person of the firm Ballista Pharmaceuticals, which was engaged in the marketing and distribution of NRx medicines, including Tricon tablets, a psychotropic During the investigation, it was found that the said firm was functioning under the active control and supervision of the petitioner, while the day day marketing and distribution operations were being carrie brother, co revealed repeated and systematic violations of the license conditions by Ballista Pharmaceuticals under the control of the petitioner. Documentary evidence collected durin the stock limits prescribed under the license on more than 100 occasions over a period of time and repeatedly stocked tramadol tablets far beyond the permissible limit. Such persistent violations canno or technical irregularities, but constitute deliberate acts facilitating illicit trafficking of psychotropic substances. raised by the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the permissible limits of the license is wholly misleading and devoid of merit. The license issued to the petitioner cannot be used as a shield to justify the illegal supply and diversion of psychotropic substances to unauthorized entities. Even where a license tablets must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including verification of the license of the purchasing entity, maintenance of proper records, and adherence to prescribed limits. In the present case, investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner deliberately supplied -9371 of 2026 -4- petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is the owner and controlling person of the firm Ballista Pharmaceuticals, which was engaged in the marketing and distribution of NRx medicines, including Tricon tablets, a psychotropic substance regulated under the NDPS Act, 1985. During the investigation, it was found that the said firm was functioning under the active control and supervision of the petitioner, while the day day marketing and distribution operations were being carrie brother, co-accused Amit Bhandari. He argued that the investigation has revealed repeated and systematic violations of the license conditions by Pharmaceuticals under the control of the petitioner. Documentary evidence collected during the investigation establishes that the firm violated the stock limits prescribed under the license on more than 100 occasions over a period of time and repeatedly stocked tramadol tablets far beyond the permissible limit. Such persistent violations canno or technical irregularities, but constitute deliberate acts facilitating illicit trafficking of psychotropic substances. He further argued that the contention raised by the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the ermissible limits of the license is wholly misleading and devoid of merit. The license issued to the petitioner cannot be used as a shield to justify the illegal supply and diversion of psychotropic substances to unauthorized entities. Even where a license exists, the sale and distribution of tramadol tablets must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including verification of the license of the purchasing entity, maintenance of proper records, and adherence to prescribed limits. In the present case, investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner deliberately supplied petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is the owner and controlling person of the firm Ballista Pharmaceuticals, which was engaged in the marketing and distribution of NRx medicines, including Tricon-P tramadol substance regulated under the NDPS Act, 1985. During the investigation, it was found that the said firm was functioning under the active control and supervision of the petitioner, while the day- day marketing and distribution operations were being carried out by his He argued that the investigation has revealed repeated and systematic violations of the license conditions by Pharmaceuticals under the control of the petitioner. Documentary g the investigation establishes that the firm violated the stock limits prescribed under the license on more than 100 occasions over a period of time and repeatedly stocked tramadol tablets far beyond the permissible limit. Such persistent violations cannot be treated as inadvertent or technical irregularities, but constitute deliberate acts facilitating illicit He further argued that the contention raised by the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the ermissible limits of the license is wholly misleading and devoid of merit. The license issued to the petitioner cannot be used as a shield to justify the illegal supply and diversion of psychotropic substances to unauthorized exists, the sale and distribution of tramadol tablets must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including verification of the license of the purchasing entity, maintenance of proper records, and adherence to prescribed limits. In the present case, investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner deliberately supplied petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is the owner and controlling person of the firm Ballista Pharmaceuticals, which was engaged in the P tramadol substance regulated under the NDPS Act, 1985. During the investigation, it was found that the said firm was functioning -to- d out by his He argued that the investigation has revealed repeated and systematic violations of the license conditions by Pharmaceuticals under the control of the petitioner. Documentary g the investigation establishes that the firm violated the stock limits prescribed under the license on more than 100 occasions over a period of time and repeatedly stocked tramadol tablets far beyond the t be treated as inadvertent or technical irregularities, but constitute deliberate acts facilitating illicit He further argued that the contention raised by the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the ermissible limits of the license is wholly misleading and devoid of merit. The license issued to the petitioner cannot be used as a shield to justify the illegal supply and diversion of psychotropic substances to unauthorized exists, the sale and distribution of tramadol tablets must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including verification of the license of the purchasing entity, maintenance of proper the investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner deliberately supplied PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- tramadol tablets to entities that either did not possess the required license or were not authorized to stock the quantity supplied attracts the penal pr during the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner deliberately used a fake address for the purpose of documentation and transportation of tramadol consignments. The address mentioned on the Ballista Pharmaceuticals was 73, Radhakunj, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Upon verification of the said premises, the owner of the property stated that he had no connection whatsoever with Ballista Pharmaceuticals or with the any business dealings with the said firm. petitioner cannot claim parity with any other co been granted bail, as the role attributed to the different and far more serious. The co Bhandari, were granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that they were sleeping partners in the said firm. He argued that the parity with grounds of arrest is misplaced totally different from the arrest memo of the petitioner’s arrest memo would wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned that grounds of arrest were duly explained to him. Moreover, the said arrest memo of two attesting witnesses co-accused. become a matter of grave concern in the State of Punjab, where such -9371 of 2026 -5- tramadol tablets to entities that either did not possess the required license or were not authorized to stock the quantity supplied attracts the penal provisions of the NDPS Act. during the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner deliberately used a fake address for the purpose of documentation and transportation of tramadol consignments. The address mentioned on the Ballista Pharmaceuticals was 73, Radhakunj, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Upon verification of the said premises, the owner of the property stated that he had no connection whatsoever with Ballista Pharmaceuticals or with the petitioner and that he had never placed any order or maintained any business dealings with the said firm. petitioner cannot claim parity with any other co been granted bail, as the role attributed to the different and far more serious. The co-accused, Nabha Bhandari, were granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that they were sleeping partners in the said firm. He argued that the parity with co-accused Rajender Rajan on the ground of non grounds of arrest is misplaced, as the arrest memo of said co totally different from the arrest memo of the petitioner’s arrest memo would reveal that it bears petitioner’s signatures wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned that grounds of arrest were duly explained to him. Moreover, the said arrest memo of two attesting witnesses, which was missing from the arrest memo of the accused. He submitted that the illegal trafficking of tramadol tablets has become a matter of grave concern in the State of Punjab, where such tramadol tablets to entities that either did not possess the required license or were not authorized to stock the quantity supplied and such conduct squarely ovisions of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that, during the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner deliberately used a fake address for the purpose of documentation and transportation of tramadol consignments. The address mentioned on the boxes recovered from Ballista Pharmaceuticals was 73, Radhakunj, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Upon verification of the said premises, the owner of the property stated that he had no connection whatsoever with Ballista Pharmaceuticals petitioner and that he had never placed any order or maintained any business dealings with the said firm. He further argued that the petitioner cannot claim parity with any other co-accused persons who have been granted bail, as the role attributed to the present petitioner is materially accused, Nabhay Bhandari and Priya Bhandari, were granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that they were sleeping partners in the said firm. He argued that the claim of petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure of as the arrest memo of said co-accused is totally different from the arrest memo of the petitioner, as a bare perusal of reveal that it bears petitioner’s signatures wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned that grounds of arrest were duly explained to him. Moreover, the said arrest memo also bears signatures , which was missing from the arrest memo of the He submitted that the illegal trafficking of tramadol tablets has become a matter of grave concern in the State of Punjab, where such tramadol tablets to entities that either did not possess the required license or uch conduct squarely He further submitted that, during the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner deliberately used a fake address for the purpose of documentation and transportation of boxes recovered from Ballista Pharmaceuticals was 73, Radhakunj, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Upon verification of the said premises, the owner of the property stated that he had no connection whatsoever with Ballista Pharmaceuticals petitioner and that he had never placed any order or maintained He further argued that the accused persons who have present petitioner is materially Bhandari and Priya Bhandari, were granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that they were claim of petitioner of disclosure of accused is , as a bare perusal of reveal that it bears petitioner’s signatures wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned that grounds of arrest were also bears signatures , which was missing from the arrest memo of the He submitted that the illegal trafficking of tramadol tablets has become a matter of grave concern in the State of Punjab, where such PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- substances are widely abused by dru associates were operating a cartel involving pharmaceutical firms and hospital pharmacists for the diversion of tramadol tablets into the illicit market. He further submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals a well-established supply chain for the diversion of tramadol tablets, and the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution case and may lead to tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses. of the offence and the adverse impact on public health and society at large the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. 6. The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain to the illegal diversion and trafficking of psychotropic substances, regulated under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates th nominal partner of Ballista Pharmaceuticals, but was actively controlling and supervising the affairs of the firm, which was allegedly engaged in systematic and repeated violations of the conditions of the license issued its favour. permissible stock limits on numerous occasions and had allegedly supplied tramadol tablets to unauthorized entities without adherence to the mandatory statutory safeguards. At this sta quantity recovered was within the licensed limit cannot by itself absolve him of criminal liability, particularly when the prosecution has specifically alleged misuse of the license for illegal diversion of psy -9371 of 2026 -6- substances are widely abused by drug addicts. The petitioner and his associates were operating a cartel involving pharmaceutical firms and hospital pharmacists for the diversion of tramadol tablets into the illicit He further submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals established supply chain for the diversion of tramadol tablets, and the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution case and may lead to tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses. Thus, learned counsel prayed that considering the of the offence and the adverse impact on public health and society at large the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Heard. The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain to the illegal diversion and trafficking of psychotropic substances, regulated under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely a nominal partner of Ballista Pharmaceuticals, but was actively controlling and supervising the affairs of the firm, which was allegedly engaged in systematic and repeated violations of the conditions of the license issued its favour. The status report reveals that the firm had exceeded the permissible stock limits on numerous occasions and had allegedly supplied tramadol tablets to unauthorized entities without adherence to the mandatory statutory safeguards. At this stage, the contention of the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the licensed limit cannot by itself absolve him of criminal liability, particularly when the prosecution has specifically alleged misuse of the license for illegal diversion of psy g addicts. The petitioner and his associates were operating a cartel involving pharmaceutical firms and hospital pharmacists for the diversion of tramadol tablets into the illicit He further submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals established supply chain for the diversion of tramadol tablets, and the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution case and may lead to tampering with evidence and influencing ed counsel prayed that considering the seriousness of the offence and the adverse impact on public health and society at large the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain to the illegal diversion and trafficking of psychotropic substances, regulated under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The material collected during at the petitioner was not merely a nominal partner of Ballista Pharmaceuticals, but was actively controlling and supervising the affairs of the firm, which was allegedly engaged in systematic and repeated violations of the conditions of the license issued reveals that the firm had exceeded the permissible stock limits on numerous occasions and had allegedly supplied tramadol tablets to unauthorized entities without adherence to the mandatory ge, the contention of the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the licensed limit cannot by itself absolve him of criminal liability, particularly when the prosecution has specifically alleged misuse of the license for illegal diversion of psychotropic substances g addicts. The petitioner and his associates were operating a cartel involving pharmaceutical firms and hospital pharmacists for the diversion of tramadol tablets into the illicit He further submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals established supply chain for the diversion of tramadol tablets, and the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution case and may lead to tampering with evidence and influencing seriousness of the offence and the adverse impact on public health and society at large The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain to the illegal diversion and trafficking of psychotropic substances, regulated under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The material collected during at the petitioner was not merely a nominal partner of Ballista Pharmaceuticals, but was actively controlling and supervising the affairs of the firm, which was allegedly engaged in systematic and repeated violations of the conditions of the license issued in reveals that the firm had exceeded the permissible stock limits on numerous occasions and had allegedly supplied tramadol tablets to unauthorized entities without adherence to the mandatory ge, the contention of the petitioner that the quantity recovered was within the licensed limit cannot by itself absolve him of criminal liability, particularly when the prosecution has specifically chotropic substances PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- into the illicit market. The allegation regarding the use of a fake address for transportation and documentation of consignments further strengthens the prosecution case and prima facie reflects deliberate concealment and manipulation by the petitioner is also misconceived, as the co anticipatory bail were stated to be sleeping partners, whereas the present petitioner is alleged to be the principal Similarly, the reliance placed upon the bail granted to co Rajan on the ground of non the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the arrest memo placed on recor prima facie reflects attesting witnesses acknowledging that the grounds of arrest were explained to the petitioner petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with th not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242 v. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). 7. which the alleged supply chain was operated, the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses, and the larger impact of -9371 of 2026 -7- into the illicit market. The allegation regarding the use of a fake address for transportation and documentation of consignments further strengthens the prosecution case and prima facie reflects deliberate concealment and manipulation in the conduct of business operations. The plea of parity raised by the petitioner is also misconceived, as the co anticipatory bail were stated to be sleeping partners, whereas the present petitioner is alleged to be the principal Similarly, the reliance placed upon the bail granted to co Rajan on the ground of non-disclosure of grounds of arrest does not advance the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the arrest memo placed on recor prima facie reflects that it bears the signatures of the petitioner as well as attesting witnesses acknowledging that the grounds of arrest were explained the petitioner. Moreover, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with th not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242 v. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). Considering the seriousness of the accusations, the manner in h the alleged supply chain was operated, the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses, and the larger impact of into the illicit market. The allegation regarding the use of a fake address for transportation and documentation of consignments further strengthens the prosecution case and prima facie reflects deliberate concealment and in the conduct of business operations. The plea of parity raised by the petitioner is also misconceived, as the co-accused who were granted anticipatory bail were stated to be sleeping partners, whereas the present petitioner is alleged to be the principal controlling person of the firm. Similarly, the reliance placed upon the bail granted to co-accused Rajender disclosure of grounds of arrest does not advance the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the arrest memo placed on recor bears the signatures of the petitioner as well as attesting witnesses acknowledging that the grounds of arrest were explained Moreover, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242 and State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). Considering the seriousness of the accusations, the manner in h the alleged supply chain was operated, the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses, and the larger impact of into the illicit market. The allegation regarding the use of a fake address for transportation and documentation of consignments further strengthens the prosecution case and prima facie reflects deliberate concealment and in the conduct of business operations. The plea of parity raised accused who were granted anticipatory bail were stated to be sleeping partners, whereas the present controlling person of the firm. accused Rajender disclosure of grounds of arrest does not advance the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the arrest memo placed on record bears the signatures of the petitioner as well as attesting witnesses acknowledging that the grounds of arrest were explained Moreover, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is e period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna State through CBI Considering the seriousness of the accusations, the manner in h the alleged supply chain was operated, the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses, and the larger impact of PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- such offences on public health and society, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to grant regular b 8. hereby dismissed. 9. to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigatio 06.05.2026 Puneet… -9371 of 2026 -8- such offences on public health and society, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigatio (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable such offences on public health and society, this Court does not find any ail to the petitioner at this stage. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merit is It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No such offences on public health and society, this Court does not find any Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merit is It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.07 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment