Pharma Licences Cannot Shield Organised Drug Diversion: Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Bail In Massive Psychotropic Drug Trafficking Racket
Court holds commercial-scale trafficking, confessional statements, and organised diversion network create strong prima facie case; strict bail conditions under Section 37 of NDPS not satisfied
Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant regular bail to eight accused persons allegedly involved in a large-scale psychotropic drug trafficking racket, holding that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were not met in view of the seriousness of the allegations and prima facie evidence of organised illegal diversion of medicines.
The Court found that the case allegedly involved recovery of an enormous commercial quantity of psychotropic medicines, over 1.37 crore tablets weighing approximately 5772 kg, including Alprazolam, Tramadol, and Zolpidem Tartrate. Furthermore, the bench noted that the confessional statements and investigation material prima facie linked the accused and the allegations reflected a planned network across multiple states.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed, “The grant of bail, though discretionary, assumes a narrower compass where allegations pertain to organised diversion of regulated pharmaceutical substances into illicit channels under the guise of lawful business operations. Courts have consistently cautioned that entities operating within the pharmaceutical sector cannot be permitted to cloak unlawful activities behind the facade of licences or corporate structures, particularly where the allegations disclose large-scale commercial dealings capable of undermining the statutory framework of the NDPS Act. It is a settled principle that legality of form cannot defeat scrutiny of substance; the mere existence of licences or corporate entities does not, by itself, dispel a prima facie inference arising from surrounding circumstances”.
“In cases involving alleged diversion through layered business arrangements or intermediary entities, the Court is required to adopt a cautious approach, as complex offences pertaining to narcotics, often employ structured transactions or shell arrangements to distance principal actors from the physical recovery of contraband. The submission that the petitioner(s) were operating through licensed entities or formal commercial channels, therefore, cannot be accepted at face value at this stage, particularly when the magnitude of the alleged recovery indicates a coordinated supply chain extending beyond isolated transactions. Commercial sophistication cannot be permitted to become a shield against criminal accountability”, the bench further noted in the order.
The bench passed the common order while deciding eight connected petitions arising out of registered case dated 08-12-2024 by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Amritsar, under Sections 8, 22, 25, 27-A, 29, 35, 54 and 60 of the NDPS Act.
The Court also noted the grave societal impact of drug trafficking, observing that drug abuse has emerged as a serious public health crisis affecting India’s youth and national wellbeing.
Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Shyam Babu appeared for the respondent.
According to the prosecution, the case involved recovery of an enormous commercial quantity of psychotropic medicines, over 1.37 crore tablets weighing approximately 5772 kg, including Alprazolam, Tramadol, and Zolpidem Tartrate.
The investigation revealed a complex network involving:
-Pharmaceutical manufacturers
-Licensed distributors
-Marketing companies
-Medical store operators.
The NCB alleged that the accused conspired to divert legally manufactured prescription medicines into illegal channels and black markets using fictitious firms, dummy proprietors, and fake documentation.
However, some accused allegedly admitted their involvement in statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, including selling huge quantities of restricted medicines to fictitious firms for profit. In one instance, an accused allegedly disclosed selling approximately 1.7 crore Tramadol tablets to fictitious firms across multiple states to divert them illegally.
The accused arguing that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, sought bail on several grounds, including that they were licensed pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, or chemists; they were implicated solely based on disclosure statements of co-accused; no direct recovery was made from many of them; investigation was complete and challan had been filed; trial had not commenced and they were in custody for months.
The High Court rejecting the pleas, emphasised that offences involving commercial quantity of narcotics attract strict statutory limitations on bail.
The Court stressed that drug trafficking is a grave offence affecting society at large and requires strict judicial scrutiny while considering bail. It observed that grant of bail in such serious offences must be consistent with statutory requirements, public interest, and the need to prevent interference with investigation or repetition of offences.
Finding that the petitioners failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and considering the scale, seriousness, and organised nature of the alleged illegal drug diversion racket, the High Court declined to grant regular bail to all the accused.
Cause Title: Aashish Verma v. Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:020996]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, Pradeep Sharma, Kanishk Swaroop, Advocates.
Respondent: Shyam Babu, Antesh Kumar, Advocates.