The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to accused individuals Manic Goyal and Konic Goyal in a high-profile narcotics case involving large-scale illegal trafficking of psychotropic substances.
The bench of Justice Sumeet Goel while dismissing both petitions, emphasized the gravity of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), particularly when commercial quantities are involved.
The case arises from an FIR registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on 07.02.2025, based on specific intelligence inputs regarding an organized drug trafficking network operating across multiple states. Acting on this information, the NCB conducted surveillance and a series of raids, leading to substantial recoveries of contraband substances.
As detailed in the seizure table (pages 2–3 of the order), authorities recovered massive quantities of narcotics and psychotropic substances, including thousands of Tramadol and Alprazolam tablets, over 8.8 lakh bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup, bulk raw materials including hundreds of kilograms of Tramadol Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate, and psychotropic medicines, ampoules, and granules across multiple manufacturing units and locations
These recoveries, spread across Amritsar, Haridwar, Dehradun, and Himachal Pradesh, indicate a widespread and structured illegal supply chain.
During the investigation, statements of co-accused and other material evidence allegedly revealed that the petitioners were connected with procurement, facilitation, and movement of contraband substances. The prosecution contended that they were part of a larger criminal network engaged in illicit drug trafficking.
It was further argued that the petitioners’ involvement was not limited to isolated transactions but extended to a broader conspiracy involving manufacturing units and distribution channels.
Buy Now: 50+ PMLA JUDGEMENTS : CASE LAWS
The petitioners, through senior counsel, argued that no contraband was recovered from their possession Their implication was solely based on statements of co-accused, which lack evidentiary value Firms linked to them (such as M/s Digital Vision and M/s Vellinton Healthcare) held valid GST registrations and manufacturing licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. One of the petitioners was merely a “sleeping partner” with no operational role. The seized medicines were legally manufactured and that no direct nexus existed between the firms and the alleged illegal trafficking.
Opposing the bail, the NCB argued that the case involves recovery of commercial quantities, triggering the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioners’ role is supported by material evidence beyond co-accused statements. Custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the full conspiracy, trace financial transactions, and identify other network members. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper investigation and allow tampering with evidence
The court while dismissing the petitions observed that the allegations are grave and involve commercial quantities, attracting strict conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act Prima facie material indicates the petitioners’ link with co-accused and the trafficking network Absence of direct recovery is not decisive at this stage, especially when corroborative material exists. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation may not be required
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, not to be granted routinely in serious offences.
The Court underscored that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, societal interest and the need for effective investigation take precedence. It observed that drug trafficking poses a serious threat to public health and social order. Courts must consider the magnitude of offence, role of accused, and impact on society. Granting bail at an early stage may impede investigation
Concluding that no exceptional circumstances existed to grant relief, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the full extent of the conspiracy. Both anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit.
Case Details
Case Title: Manic Goyal Versus Union of India
Case No.: CRM-M-16243-2026
Date: 24.04.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor
Read More: Paytm Payments Bank Licence Cancelled: What It Means for Account Holders and Their Money?
