Afridi Vs Narcotic Control Bureau,Chd

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case Crime No. 24/2025 dated 19.11.2025, registered under Sections 8, 22, 29 and 60 of the NDPS, 1985, at Police Station Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of specific secret information received on 19.11.2025, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) intercepted a consignment and recovered 4,95,800 Tramadol Hydrochloride (NRx) Clovedol-100 SR tablets, along with 1,400 Domperidone capsules, 1,800 Parawin tablets and 1,500 Cremofam tablets. During the course of investigation at Amritsar, where the consignment was allegedly to be delivered by accused Hasin, one Sahil was apprehended while waiting for offending truck No.UP-11AT-1031 carrying the contraband, whereas another accused managed to flee. Subsequent raids were conducted at the premises of Sahib Singh resulted in the recovery of

¶17

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.23 13.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-9977-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶19

240 NRx Acetaminophen, Tramadol Hydrochloride and Dicyclomine HCl capsules, besides 42,720 Tramadol tablets and 19,800 Alprazolam tablets. It is alleged that co-accused Vishal Chaudhary, owner of Eraya Pharma Pvt. Ltd., disclosed in his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act that he had facilitated the illegal diversion of the seized consignment to the present petitioner, Afridi, beyond its intended destination and had also sent similar consignments to different places through courier services. It is also alleged that during investigation, co-accused Hasin also disclosed that the recovered tablets had been sent by the present petitioner and were to be delivered to Sahib Singh and his sonSumit Singh.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his conscious possession. It is submitted that there is neither any bill nor invoice in the name of the petitioner, the truck from which the contraband was recovered does not belong to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused only on the disclosure statements of co-accused Vishal Chaudhary and Hasin, which remain uncorroborated by any independent evidence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required.

¶21

Per contra , Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/NCB, while referring to the reply filed by Mr. Charchit Lohiya, SubInspector, NCB, Chandigarh, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the present case pertains to the illegal diversion and trafficking of commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets through a well-organized network involving the

¶22

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.23 13.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

-3-

¶24

CRM-M-9977-2026 (O&M)

¶25

manufacturer, transporter, suppliers and receivers. He submits that the contraband, though shown in official records as destined for Dehradun, was deliberately diverted to Amritsar at the instance of the petitioner, thereby facilitating illegal circulation of psychotropic substances. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been implicated merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a coaccused. During investigation, accused Haseen disclosed that the seized consignment had been sent by the present petitioner from Saharanpur and was to be delivered to Sahib Singh and his son Sumit Singh at Amritsar. Co-accused Haseen also suffered disclosure statement to the effect that another consignment had been supplied by the petitioner to the same recipients about 10-12 days prior to the present recovery. Acting upon the said disclosure, the NCB conducted a search at the premises of Sahib Singh at Amritsar, where 240 NRx psychotropic capsules/tablets containing Tramadol were recovered. Learned State counsel further submits that during investigation, Vishal Chaudhary, Director of Eraya Pharma Pvt. Ltd., admitted that although the seized batch was shown on paper to have been sold to Shri Ram Medical Store but he had supplied the mobile number of the petitioner-Afridi to transporter Monu Kumar through his employee Yatinder and instructed that the consignment be delivered wherever the petitioner directed. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner was actively controlling the diversion of the consignments and was not a mere recipient. It is further submitted that there are specific call detail records and other electronic evidence which shows that the petitioner was in regular contact with co-accused Haseen, transporter-Monu Kumar, Sahib Singh, Sumit Singh and the owner of Shri Ram Medical Store immediately before the seizure. Learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner is the main conspirator behind the illegal diversion of psychotropic

¶26

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.23 13.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-9977-2026 (O&M)

¶28

-4-

¶29

substances and has been absconding since the recovery. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act relating to the recovery of 34,180 narcotic tablets (commercial quantity) registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana, and was granted bail therein on 15.02.2025. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶31

The allegations against the petitioner relate to the illegal procurement, diversion and trafficking of a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. According to the prosecution, the consignment was originally meant to be delivered at Dehradun but, at the instance of the petitioner, it was diverted towards Amritsar before reaching its destination. The vehicle carrying the consignment was intercepted at Zirakpur.

¶32

It is true that no recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner. However, the prosecution has placed on record material to suggest his involvement in the alleged offence. The prosecution has relied upon the statement of co-accused Vishal Chaudhary, who is stated to have instructed the transporter to deliver the consignment as per the directions of the petitioner.

¶33

Apart from the aforesaid material, the prosecution has also referred to the call detail records and other electronic evidence to show that the petitioner was in regular contact with the co-accused, including Haseen, the transporter Monu Kumar, Sahib Singh, Sumit Singh and the owner of Shri Ram Medical Store immediately before the recovery.

¶34

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.23 13.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CRM-M-9977-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶36

Furthermore, it is alleged that the petitioner played an active role in diverting and controlling the movement of the consignment and was not merely a recipient of the contraband. The investigation is still in progress and the petitioner has been absconding since the recovery and is involved in another case under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity.

¶37

Another significant circumstance is that the present case involves a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. Consequently, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act become applicable. At this stage, this Court is not in a position to record the satisfaction required under the said provision that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶38

Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, the huge quantity of psychotropic substances allegedly involved, the role attributed to the petitioner and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶39

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

¶40

However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove

¶41

would not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

¶42

(H.S.GREWAL) July 17, 2026 JUDGE Sonia

¶43

Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶44

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.23 13.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Afridi v. Narcotic Control Bureau,Chd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afridi v. Narcotic Control Bureau,Chd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Emanial Salhotra

Amit Kumr Vs State of Punjab and Another

Nalima Warraich Alias Nalima Wraich Vs State of Punjab and Another

Boota Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sahib Singh Vs Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh

Monu Kumar Vs Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit Sas Nagar Mohali