| |
CDJ 2026 SC 228
|
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 20215 of 2025) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Parties : Vinay Kumar Gupta Versus State of Madhya Pradesh\r\n |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ----- For the Respondent: ---- |
| Date of Judgment : 16-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 21 and 22 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
- Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Drugs (Control) Act, 1950
- Sections 13 and 5 of the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950
- Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Catch Words:
- Anticipatory bail
- Custodial interrogation
- Self-incrimination
- Investigation
- FIR (First Information Report)
- Seizure
- Protection from arrest
3. Summary:
The appellant, Vinay Kumar Gupta, challenged the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s denial of anticipatory bail in a case involving the seizure of 710 bottles of cough syrup under the NDPS Act and Drugs (Control) Act. Though not named in the FIR, the car from which the contraband was seized belonged to him. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had joined and cooperated with the investigation but refused to hand over his mobile phone, asserting his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The Court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage and granted anticipatory bail, subject to continued cooperation within legal limits.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, Vinay Kumar Gupta, is aggrieved by the denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 37503/2025, in connection with Crime/First Information Report (FIR) No. 453/2025 dated 18.06.2025 registered with Police Station - Semariya, District - Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985["NDPS Act", for short] and Sections 13 and 5 of the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950.
3. The matter relates to seizure of 710 bottles of cough syrup. However, the appellant, Vinay Kumar Gupta, was not named in the Crime/FIR, though the car from which the contraband was seized belongs to him.
4. By order dated 15.12.2025, subject to the appellant, Vinay Kumar Gupta, joining and cooperating with the investigation in the aforestated Crime/FIR, he was granted protection from arrest.
5. Counter affidavit has now been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it is stated that, after the passing of the aforestated order dated 15.12.2025, the appellant joined the investigation on 02.02.2026 but it is the complaint of the State that he has not handed over his mobile phone. It is for the State to complete the investigation in accordance with due procedure but, in that regard, it cannot insist upon the appellant incriminating himself. Cooperating with the investigation does not extend to violation of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination.
6. As the appellant, Vinay Kumar Gupta, has joined and is presently cooperating with the investigation, we find no grounds made out for custodial interrogation of the appellant at this stage. Subject to the appellant continuing to cooperate with the investigation, within the limitations prescribed by law, he is entitled to grant of relief.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment/order dated 16.09.2025. It is directed that in the event the appellant, Vinay Kumar Gupta, is arrested in relation to the Crime/FIR in question, he shall be released on bail forthwith on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the trial Court.
8. The appellant shall also abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. We clarify that we have not made any observations/comments on the merits of the case and any observation made in this order is meant only for the limited purpose of grant of anticipatory bail.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
