Facts of the Case

This is a narcotics case, not a GST matter — GST is mentioned only as one detail undermining the credibility of documents produced by the accused. Vishal Dhuria, running a medical store (M/s Angel Homeo Pharma), sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 22, 22(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, after a co-accused, apprehended with commercial quantities of Alprazolam and Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets, named the petitioner in his disclosure statement as the source of the contraband, purportedly supplied disguised as homeopathic medicine purchases.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail given the disclosure-statement implication and questionable supporting bills.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner was not named in the FIR and was only implicated through a co-accused's disclosure statement.
  • He was merely selling homeopathic medicine to the co-accused, evidenced by bills, and was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner had concealed a prior conviction under Section 22 of the NDPS Act.
  • The bills produced by the petitioner were not genuine — they lacked GSTIN or PAN numbers, showed no GST paid, and were dated inconsistently with the claimed payment date — undermining his defence.
  • Custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the source and chain of supply of the contraband.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found the petitioner's role required thorough investigation to establish the modus operandi and possible involvement of others, including departmental officials.
  • It held the bills' lack of GSTIN, absence of shown GST payment, and inconsistent dating undermined the petitioner's claimed innocent commercial relationship with the co-accused.
  • The anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Important Clarification

The absence of a GSTIN and GST payment on the petitioner's bills was cited only as one evidentiary red flag suggesting the bills were not genuine — this order does not decide any GST law question and is fundamentally an NDPS Act bail ruling. It should not be read for any GST-related proposition.

Sections Involved

  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 22, 22(c), 29, 61, 85
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 (anticipatory bail)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Respondent (State of Punjab) — the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
  • Case No.: CRM-M-41926-2023
  • Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:116253
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary
  • Date of Decision: 04.09.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.