Facts of the Case

This is an NDPS Act anticipatory bail matter; GST registration is mentioned only as a defence argument about the petitioners' businesses being legitimate, and no GST question was decided. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Amritsar Zonal Unit, registered NCB Crime No. 4/2025 after intelligence-based interceptions and searches led to recoveries of large quantities of Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets, codeine-based cough syrups, Alprazolam, and other psychotropic substances across multiple locations in Punjab, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh between February and November 2025, implicating a firm called M/s Digital Vision and related entities. Petitioners Manic Goyal and Konic Goyal, partners connected with M/s Digital Vision, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest under multiple sections of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail given the commercial-quantity recovery and the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No recovery was made from the petitioners personally; their implication rested solely on statements of co-accused, which have limited evidentiary value.
  • M/s Digital Vision and M/s Vellinton Healthcare held valid GST registrations and valid drug manufacturing licences, supporting the legitimacy of their business.
  • Manic Goyal was a sleeping partner with no role in day-to-day affairs; Konic Goyal and another partner managed the firm.
  • The petitioners had provided GST documents and purchase orders relating to the firm's dealings, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the case was essentially documentary.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The recovery involved a commercial quantity of contraband, attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
  • Investigation had revealed the petitioners' nexus with co-accused persons and their role in facilitating procurement, movement and distribution of contraband.
  • Custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full conspiracy, trace the financial trail, and identify other members of the network; the petitioners had evaded repeated calls to join the investigation.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and State v. Anil Sharma, the Court held that absence of a need for custodial interrogation is not, by itself, a ground for anticipatory bail.
  • Given the magnitude of the recovery and the material indicating the petitioners' connection with the network, the Court found a prima facie case could not be ruled out at this stage.
  • The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation and that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could hamper the investigation.
  • Both anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit, with the Court clarifying that nothing said in the order amounted to an opinion on the merits of the case.

Important Clarification

The GST registration certificates and returns of the firms involved were raised only to argue that the business was legitimate — the Court did not evaluate or rule on any GST compliance question. This remains purely a criminal law (NDPS Act) bail order.

Sections Involved

  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 8-A, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27-A, 29, 37 and 60
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 (anticipatory bail)

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of against the petitioners; anticipatory bail was refused. The underlying narcotics case remains pending trial, and no GST issue was adjudicated.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh  |  Case No.: CRM-M-16243-2026 and CRM-M-16247-2026  |  Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel  |  Date: 24 April 2026

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.