The court granted bail to a pharmacist because the contraband was recovered from a co-accused, and the petitioner provided verified genuine purchase bills and held a valid drug license, rendering the co-accused's disclosure statement insufficient for continued detention.

Order

21/04/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record.

2. The instant application for bail has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.82/2025 dated 17.04.2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali Churu, District Churu for the offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act .

3. In brief, the case pertains to an incident dated 16.04.2025, when the police left the police station at 11:31 PM for patrolling and checking illegal activities and, during the course of patrolling, set up a naka (checkpoint) near Police Chowki Kasba, Churu at about 12:30 AM on 17.04.2025. At around 1:05 AM, a person carrying two plastic bags was noticed approaching from the direction of Goenka School, who, upon seeing the police, attempted to turn back hastily but was apprehended and identified as Ajay Prakash Sharma. Upon inquiry, he disclosed that the bags contained Tramadol and Alprazolam tablets, but he failed to produce any valid bill, licence, or permit. Upon search, 15,000 Alprazolam tablets (Batch No. MT-296) and 2,000 Tramadol tablets (CLOVEDOL 100 SR, Batch No. MT-306), both being psychotropic substances, were recovered from his possession. Samples were drawn, weighed, and sealed as per procedure, and the remaining contraband was seized and marked accordingly. As the accused had no valid authorization for possession, FIR No. 82/2025 under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered, investigation was conducted, and upon completion, a charge-sheet was filed against accused Ajay Prakash Sharma under Sections 8/22 , 29 NDPS Act and against co-accused Vikas Sahran and Mumtaz Ali under Section 8/29 NDPS Act ; the present bail application has been filed as co-accused Mumtaz Ali is in judicial custody.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that 15,000 Alprazolam tablets and 2,000 Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets (hereinafter referred to be as “the drug in question”) were recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused, Ajay Prakash Sharma. He submits that, upon the disclosure statements under Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , the said co-accused alleged that the said tablets had been purchased from the petitioner’s medical store i.e. M/s Muskan Medical & General Store. He further submits that the petitioner runs an authorized medical store and holds a valid licence issued by the competent authority. He also submits that the petitioner, being a registered pharmacist, had purchased the said drug in question from Shyam Pharma, the bills for which are also placed on record. He submits that the learned trial court has also verified the factum whether the petitioner is running an authorized pharmacy store and whether the bills are genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Office of the District Food Safety and Drug Control, Churu, vide communication dated 15.09.2025, has verified the factum that validity period of the drug store run by the petitioner was valid up to 07.12.2025, whereas the date of the alleged incident is 17.04.2025. He further submits that the bills generated by Shyam Pharma in favour of the petitioner’s medical store, i.e., M/s Muskan Medical & General Store, have also been duly verified, and it prima facie appeared that the bills are genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the charge-sheet and submits that the medical bill dated 15.04.2025, pertaining to the