Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Savita Chhabra, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 682 dated 10.12.2021 registered at Police Station Sector 32/33, Karnal. The proceedings arose from information received from the Drugs Control Officer, Karnal, following communication from a Drugs Inspector, Narcotics, Himachal Pradesh.

According to the prosecution case, a purchase order had been placed by M/s Vandan Medical Store, Karan Vihar, Karnal, for 2,39,400 Alprazolam tablets. During inspection, the petitioner allegedly identified her signatures on the letter pads pertaining to her firm through which the order for purchase of Alprazolam had been placed with M/s Bansal Pharma. The prosecution further alleged that dealings concerning sale and purchase were handled by the petitioner’s husband, Nitin Chhabra.

During further investigation, Nitin Chhabra allegedly stated that he and Dinesh Bansal, owner of M/s Bansal Pharma, were jointly carrying on some business at Ludhiana and that, at Dinesh Bansal’s request, an order had been placed for 399 boxes of ALPAX (0.50) Alprazolam, with packing stated as 10 × 6 × 10. The material was allegedly sent from Karnal to another place, while the defence maintained that the stock had never been received by the petitioner’s firm.

The prosecution treated the alleged non-submission of sale bills and records concerning 2,39,400 Alprazolam tablets as indicative of illegal sale of those tablets.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail merely because she claimed that the medical store, though standing in her name as proprietor, was actually being run by her husband.
  2. Whether the absence of physical recovery from the petitioner could justify grant of anticipatory bail when the prosecution relied upon purchase orders, letter pads, transport records, delivery documents and other paper transaction trails.
  3. Whether the petitioner’s status as sole proprietor of M/s Vandan Medical Store, coupled with her alleged admission of signatures on the purchase-order letter pad, prima facie connected her with the transaction involving Alprazolam tablets.
  4. Whether the alleged transaction involving 2,39,400 Alprazolam tablets, stated by the prosecution to fall within commercial quantity, warranted custodial interrogation.
  5. Whether the petitioner’s plea that the business was managed by her husband and sale operations were supervised by a competent person was sufficient, at the anticipatory bail stage, to displace the prosecution’s prima facie chain of events.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that she had been falsely implicated solely because she was the proprietor of M/s Vandan Medical Store. Her principal submissions were that:

  • Although the firm stood in her name, sales were allegedly made under the personal supervision of a competent person, Satish Kumar, as reflected from Clause 2(b) of Form 21-B.
  • Though bills had allegedly been raised in the name of M/s Vandan Medical Store, no delivery or consignment had actually been received by the firm.
  • No payment had been made by M/s Vandan Medical Store to M/s Bansal Pharma.
  • The petitioner had two minor children, and the entire business of the medical store was allegedly run by her husband, Nitin Chhabra.
  • The person responsible for sales was asserted to be co-accused Satish Kumar.
  • Even according to the FIR, the medicines had allegedly never reached the shop; therefore, according to the defence, the question of sale, wrongful loss or wrongful gain did not arise.
  • The medicines were allegedly sent by Rajiv Kumar Verma from Karnal to another place, and the stock never reached the petitioner’s firm.
  • Nitin Chhabra’s signatures were allegedly absent from the bill, which was stated to have been signed by a person named “Jai” associated with Aryavart Motor Transport Company, Karnal.
  • Any wrongful loss, if established, should allegedly be attributable to the responsible person, Satish Kumar.

Respondent-State’s Arguments

The State opposed the anticipatory bail petition and submitted that:

  • The petitioner was the proprietor of M/s Vandan Medical Store.
  • An order for Alprazolam had been placed from M/s Bansal Pharma on the firm’s letter pad.
  • The dealings were allegedly undertaken by Nitin Chhabra, the petitioner’s husband.
  • No bill accounting for the purchase or disposal of 2,39,400 Alprazolam tablets was found or produced, which, according to the State, indicated illegal sale.
  • During investigation, a purchase order placed by M/s Vandan Medical Store and a delivery receipt concerning three boxes were allegedly produced.
  • The State alleged that the goods were handed over to Nitin Chhabra on 02.07.2021.
  • The petitioner, being sole proprietor, was alleged to have acted along with her husband in illegally selling the tablets after purchase from M/s Bansal Pharma.
  • The tablets were asserted to fall within commercial quantity.
  • The petitioner allegedly admitted her signatures on the letter pad used to place the order.
  • M/s Bansal Pharma allegedly handed the stock to transporter Nirman Goods Carrier, Chandigarh, through a bilty dated 01.07.2021, and the stock was allegedly further delivered to M/s Vandan Medical Store under the signatures of Nitin Chhabra.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition.

The Court noted that there was no dispute that the petitioner was the proprietor of M/s Vandan Medical Store. Although the petitioner asserted that the medical store was being run by her husband, Nitin Chhabra, the Court examined the status report dated 25.07.2022 and noted the prosecution’s statement regarding his involvement in two other criminal cases, including NDPS Act cases.

The Court reasoned that, in the circumstances recorded in the order, it did not stand to logic that the petitioner would be unaware of her husband’s activities, particularly in light of the criminal antecedents referred to in the status report and the fact that those antecedents also concerned NDPS offences.

Most significantly, the High Court found that the prosecution had connected the petitioner and her firm through a chain of events which, prima facie, remained uncontroverted. The Court held that the mere fact that no recovery had been effected did not assist the petitioner because the transaction trails on paper showed that the sale and purchase of the intoxicant tablets had, in fact, taken place.

The Court further observed that the overall facts and circumstances left no basis to infer that the petitioner lacked knowledge of the alleged sale and purchase of the intoxicant tablets. Consequently, the Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was a must.

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition.

Important Clarification

A particularly important clarification appears at the very beginning of the judgment: the anticipatory bail petition concerned an FIR registered under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, and the High Court specifically recorded that Section 22 of the NDPS Act had wrongly been mentioned in the impugned order dated 03.01.2022. This distinction should be preserved when reporting or indexing the case and should not be altered merely because the alleged substance was Alprazolam.

The judgment also carries an important bail-stage principle: absence of physical recovery is not necessarily decisive in favour of an accused where documentary and transaction trails prima facie connect the accused, the proprietary concern and the alleged sale-purchase chain of intoxicant tablets. In this case, the Court treated the paper trail and chain of events as sufficient to reject the contention based merely on non-recovery and to hold custodial interrogation necessary.

Another important clarification is that the Court’s observations were made while deciding an anticipatory bail petition. The findings regarding the chain of events, knowledge and transaction trail were assessed at the prima facie bail stage and should not be presented as a final determination of criminal guilt after trial.

Sections Involved

Section 20, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – The principal provision stated in the FIR as recorded by the High Court.

Section 22, NDPS Act, 1985 – Specifically mentioned by the High Court only to clarify that it had been wrongly referred to in the impugned order dated 03.01.2022.

Sections 22, 25, 29 and 61, NDPS Act, 1985 – Referred to in the judgment while noting another FIR mentioned in the respondent-State’s status report concerning the petitioner’s husband.

Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Also referred to in connection with the separate FIR mentioned in the status report.

 Link to download the order

https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783326898_1320compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.