AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 1 of 23 pages

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on:02.07.2025

Judgment pronounced on:07.07.2025

+ BAIL APPLN. 4300/2024

AMIT KHANNA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Budhiraja and Mr. Varun

Agarwal, Advocates.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State

with SI Prashant Kumar.

+ BAIL APPLN. 4721/2024

SATVINDER KAUR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Budhiraja and Mr. Varun

Agarwal, Advocates.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State

with SI Prashant Kumar.

+ BAIL APPLN. 405/2025

TAJINDER KAUR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anuuj Aggarwall, Advocate.

versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 2 of 23 pages

with SI Prashant Kumar.

+ BAIL APPLN. 525/2025

MANOJ KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ravin Rao, Mr. Anuj Arya, MR.

Akshit Sawal, Mr. Ayan Sharma, Ms.

Yashasvi Yadav and Ms. Jannat Garg,

Advocates.

versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State

with SI Prashant Kumar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.:

1. In the case FIR No.142/2024 of PS Prashant Vihar for offences under

Sections 22/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the accused

Manoj Kumar (in judicial custody since 27.09.2024) seeks to be

released on Regular Bail, while the remaining accused persons,

namely Amit Khanna, Satvinder Kaur and Tajinder Kaur seek

Anticipatory Bail. The predecessor benches granted interim

protection from arrest to accused Amit Khanna on 25.11.2024 and to

remaining two accused on 19.03.2025. The contraband, allegedly

recovered from or at the instance of accused/applicants was the

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 3 of 23 pages

commercial quantity of Buprenorphine, which admittedly is a

psychotropic substance.

2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is as follows.

2.1 On the night of 25.03.2024, when HC Anshul with

Ct.Chetan was engaged in patrolling duty near Tikona

Park, Village Rajapur, Rohini Sector-9, New Delhi, at

about 01:15am they noticed a person carrying a bag,

coming towards them, but on seeing them, that person

turned around and started running. On suspicion, the police

patrolling staff apprehended that person and on being

checked, he was found carrying in his bag few bottles, one

paperbox and few syringes. The paperbox had written on it

Buprenorphine Injection MI LEEGESIC and the glass

bottles had written on them Pheniramine Maleate Injection

IP Avil. The apprehended person disclosed his name as

Abu Talib. HC Anshul telephonically conveyed the

information to the Duty Officer and SHO of PS Prashant

Vihar. Upon arrival of the Investigating Officer (IO) on the

spot, the apprehended Abu Talib and articles recovered

from him were handed over to the IO, who recorded

statement of HC Anshul and got the FIR registered. After

completion of the statutory formalities under Section 50 of

the Act, the IO carried out personal search of Abu Talib,

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 4 of 23 pages

but nothing incriminating was recovered therefrom. The IO

converted the recovered articles into cloth parcels and

seized the same. The said Abu Talib was interrogated and

arrested.

2.2 On interrogation in police custody, Abu Talib informed the

IO that he used to buy the contraband injections from one

Pawan, who was introduced by one Shahid; and that

Pawan used to buy the same from one Vikrant and one

Babu @ Manoj. After collecting sufficient evidence, the IO

arrested Pawan, and filed chargesheet against Abu Talib

and Pawan.

2.3 Continuing the investigation, the IO interrogated Vikrant,

who told that he used to purchase the contraband from

Manoj @ Babu, Raja Shehzad and Satya Prakash Tiwari.

After collecting evidence from mobile phones and the

payment history, the IO arrested Vikrant.

2.4 During further investigation, Vikrant led the police team to

Humanity Welfare De-addiction Centre in Burari, where

they came to know that its Manager, Manoj had already

left for home. While the IO was affixing notice under

Section 67 of the Act, two boys arrived at the Centre and

on seeing police, one of them fled. The boy, who could not

flee, disclosed his name as Praveen and stated that he had

visited the Centre to buy Adnok tablets or Buprenorphine.

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 5 of 23 pages

After obtaining the requisite permissions, the IO raided the

Humanity Welfare De-addiction Centre, Burari, during

which records maintained by the staff, one laptop, one

ATM swipe machine, four deodorants with earbuds and

46700 tablets of Buprenorphine were recovered and

seized. During the raid, Praveen also demonstrated under

videography the manner in which Manoj used to erase the

Batch Numbers using the deodorant. During that raid, 18

files related to one NGO Saran and another NGO of

Jahangirpuri also were recovered and seized. In the course

of analysis, the IO also found forged consent forms of

Praveen, Abu Talib, Pawan and Vikrant. The records also

contained multiple entries of one patient.

2.5 Thereafter, the web of investigation kept spreading broader

and deeper, with more persons arrested and many joined as

witnesses, who stated that they used to purchase the

contraband from Manoj of Burari, and a Madam and a Don

of Jahangirpuri.

2.6 One such accused Sonu, after his arrest took the police

party to house of accused Tajinder Kaur, but she was found

not at home, so notice under Section 67 the Act was served

on her through her daughter. In compliance with notice

under Section 67 the Act, accused Manoj joined

investigation and told that they used to sell Buprenorphine

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 6 of 23 pages

at higher price on directions of accused Amit Khanna and

that the doctors visiting the Centre used to sign

prescriptions without there being any patient, for which

records used to be prepared by him (accused Manoj) on

directions of accused Amit Khanna.

2.7 Under court permission, the IO analyzed the seized case

property, including the laptop of accused Manoj, pen

drives and printouts, from which it was revealed that the

entire record was bogus, in the sense that there were more

than one Identification Numbers for same patient; entries

in the statutory Form No.7 were bogus; although Abu Talib

had been arrested on 25.03.2024, but according the records

of the deaddiction center, he received Buprenorphine till

August 2024 vide Patient Id.No.542. As per the seized

records, accused Manoj collected huge amount of money

and paid the same to accused Amit Khanna, one of the

trustees of the Trust which ran the deaddiction center.

2.8 With the above material, police filed Supplementary

Chargesheet against accused Vikrant, Satya Prakash

Tiwari, Sonu and Manoj.

2.9 Further investigation revealed that accused Manoj is

Manager-cum-Trustee of the NGO, namely Humanity

Welfare Trust, at whose office raid was conducted leading

to seizure of entire stock of Buprenorphine. It was also

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 7 of 23 pages

revealed that accused Amit Khanna is the mastermind,

who, being custodian of the entire stock, used to get profits

of illegal sale of the contraband as reflected from accounts

of the Trust. It was further revealed that accused Amit

Khanna used to purchase Buprenorphine from a company

named Rusan Pharma and was running many deaddiction

centers illegally, without obtaining requisite permissions

from the competent authority. The accused Amit Khanna

disclosed during interrogation that through Humanity

Welfare Trust, he runs 4 deaddiction centers, out of which

2 (one being in Jahangirpuri and the other being in

Mangolpuri, both named Elegant Clinic) are in the name

of his wife, accused Satvinder Kaur. As regards accused

Tajinder Kaur, the investigation revealed that she is

working in one of the said deaddiction centers owned by

accused Satvinder Kaur and that she sold the contraband to

accused Satya Prakash Tiwari.

2.10 Further investigation is continuing.

3. During arguments, both senior counsel for accused persons took me

through the abovementioned matrix, including the chargesheets and

contended that the accused/applicants deserve the reliefs of

anticipatory and regular bails.

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 8 of 23 pages

3.1 On behalf of accused Manoj, it was argued that except

telephonic connectivity between him and accused Satya

Pal Tiwari, there is no other evidence against him; and

accused Satya Pal Tiwari has already been granted bail. It

was also contended that the alleged recovery of contraband

was from the deaddiction center and not from accused

Manoj. It was contended that role of accused Manoj is only

maintenance of records, so it would not be justified to keep

him in jail, as he has already suffered incarceration since

27.09.2024.

3.2 On behalf of accused Tajinder Kaur, it was argued that the

only role ascribed to her is that she was working as nurse

in the Jahangirpuri deaddiction center and there is no

evidence to show that she received any money from

anyone towards the alleged illegal sale of the contraband.

3.3 On behalf of accused Satvinder Kaur, it was argued that

she has been fighting drug menace and her clinic started by

appointing two psychiatrists is duly registered with the

labour department. It was also argued that accused

Satvinder Kaur is innocent, insofar as Buprenorphine was

prescribed to the addicts by the doctors, and it is those

doctors who are responsible for placing purchase orders,

followed by receiving & maintaining the stock. There is no

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 9 of 23 pages

law that clearly mandates registration of OPD psychiatry

clinics.

3.4 On behalf of accused Amit Khanna, it was argued that the

only clear allegation against him is that he has been

running deaddiction centers without registration and from

his center, commercial quantity of Buprenorphine was

recovered. Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant

took me through multiple Status Reports filed by the

investigating agency and pointed out that none of those

reports specifies any legal provision that mandates

registration of the deaddiction centers. It was also argued

that Buprenorphine is indisputably a deaddiction drug,

which can be prescribed and administered by psychiatrists

as well, not just by the deaddiction centers. Learned senior

counsel for accused also took me through copies of

applications submitted by the accused to various

departments of the government, calling upon them to

disclose the provision of law dealing with registration, if

any required by an NGO/Trust to run a deaddiction center

in Delhi and also the responses thereto, pointing out no

clear response. With this, the learned senior counsel argued

that there being absolutely no clarity on requirement of

registration, penal liability cannot be foisted on the

accused/applicants for dealing in Buprenorphine.

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 10 of 23 pages

3.5 As a common argument on behalf of all accused/applicants

learned senior counsel took me through the provisions

under Sections 8(c), 64, 65A and 66 as well as The

Schedule and the Schedule 1 of the Act and contended that

Buprenorphine is not a contraband, because it is also

covered by the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, and consequently,

recovery of Buprenorphine from the deaddiction centers of

the accused/applicants is no offence.

4 Per contra, learned prosecutor strongly opposed these applications,

laying heavy emphasis on the huge quantity of recovery of

Buprenorphine from the deaddiction centers being run by the accused

/applicants. Admitting that Buprenorphine is used as medicine for

deaddiction therapy, the learned prosecutor contended that this alone

cannot be a ground to permit storage of such huge quantity and sale

thereof without valid prescriptions.

4.1 Learned prosecutor took me through investigation records

to point out fake entries recorded by accused Manoj

regarding sale of Buprenorphine, especially the supply

entries in the name Abu Talib even during the period he

was in judicial custody in the present case.

4.2 Learned prosecutor referred to the account books seized

from the premises of the deaddiction centers run by the

accused/applicants, and from the same pointed out various

payments illegally made to accused Amit Khanna. It was

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 11 of 23 pages

pointed out that the stock almirah was kept in the office of

accused Amit Khanna and it is he only, who provided keys

of that almirah. It is only accused/applicant Amit Khanna,

who according to records dealt with Rusan Pharma for

procuring Buprenorphine. It was also argued that the

contraband tablets were sold at almost double the price and

signatures of patients were forged on the deaddiction

consent forms, leading to almost 300% profits.

4.3 Learned prosecutor also pointed out that even the

psychiatrists appointed by the deaddiction centers run by

accused Satvinder Kaur were part-time employees and had

been appointed only to create smokescreen. It was also

contended that since process under Section 82 CrPC has

already been initiated against accused Satvinder Kaur, she

does not deserve anticipatory bail.

4.4 Learned prosecutor also referred to the statement of Sachin

Tiwari, supported by screenshot of his phone reflecting

purchase of Buprenorphine by him from accused Tajinder

Kaur. Since proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have been

initiated against her, according to State, accused Tajinder

Kaur does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.

4.5 To counter the argument that Buprenorphine is not

contraband, learned prosecutor referred to the judgment in

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 12 of 23 pages

the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs Raj

Kumar Arora & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 819.

5 It is with the above backdrop that entitlement of accused/applicant

Manoj for bail and entitlement of remaining three accused/

applicants for anticipatory bail has to be examined.

6 To begin with, the common argument raised on behalf of all accused

persons in these cases that Buprenorphine is not a contraband, and

recovery thereof from the deaddiction centers of the accused/

applicants is no offence, stands answered against the accused persons

by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Arora (supra). In the

said case, the Supreme Court analyzed the question as to “whether

an offence under Section 8(c) of the Act could be said to have been

made out when an accused ‘deals with’ psychotropic substances

mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not figuring in

Schedule I of the Rules thereunder”. After elaborate analysis, the

Supreme Court concluded thus:

“E. CONCLUSION

156. It cannot be said that the dealing in of “Buprenorphine

Hydrochloride” would not amount to an offence under Section 8 of

the NDPS Act owing to the fact that the said psychotropic substance

only finds mention under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and is not

listed under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules. There exists nothing to

indicate that Rules 53 and 64 of the NDPS Rules respectively, are the

governing rules in their respective Chapters, more so, when the

language of the other Rules in Chapters VI and VII respectively, are

clear about their application to the substances mentioned under the

Schedule to the Act as well.

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 13 of 23 pages

157. All the psychotropic substances mentioned under the

Schedule to the Act have potential grave and harmful

consequences to the individual and the society at large, when

abused. Some psychotropic substances mentioned under the

Schedule to the NDPS Act are also mentioned under the D&C Act

and the Rules framed thereunder. This is only because those

substances while capable of being abused for their inherent

properties could also be used in the field of medicine. However, the

mere mention of certain psychotropic substances under the D&C

regime would not take them away from the purview of the NDPS Act,

if they are also mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act….”

(emphasis supplied)

That being so, the common argument raised on behalf of all

accused/applicants that storage or sale of Buprenorphine by them

does not amount to any offence deserves to be rejected.

7 As described above, this is not a simple case of the deaddiction

centers of the accused/applicants being found in possession of

Buprenorphine, which is admittedly a psychotropic substance. This

is a case of the accused/applicants being found in possession of

commercial quantity of Buprenorphine under the garb of deaddiction

centers. This is a case of the accused/applicants being found to fudge

their records to show supply/sale of Buprenorphine to fictitious

persons; as mentioned above, in the seized documents supply of

Buprenorphine stands recorded to Abu Talib even during the period

when he was in judicial custody. This is a case of the

accused/applicants being found engaged in sale of Buprenorphine at

double rates, in order to earn profits to the tune of 300% under the

garb of deaddiction. This is a case of the accused/applicants fudging

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 14 of 23 pages

even the packaging of Buprenorphine by erasing the Batch Numbers

using the deodorants.

8 According to prosecution, recovery of the contraband was in the form

of 46000 tablets, each containing 2.5mg of Buprenorphine; thence

the total recovery of Buprenorphine was about 115grams, while

Entry No.169 of the Notification dated 19.10.2001 prescribes

20grams quantity of Buprenorphine as commercial quantity. The

contraband Buprenorphine, being admittedly the psychotropic

substance vide Entry 92 of the Schedule to the Act and the allegedly

recovered quantity being admittedly the commercial quantity, rigors

of Section 37 of the Act come into play, so the court has to ascertain

satisfaction if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

accused/applicants are not guilty of the alleged offence and are not

likely to commit any offence, if granted bail.

9 In the case of State of Haryana vs Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC

OnLine SC 2087, the Supreme Court dealt with challenge to the

High Court order granting anticipatory bail on the ground that no

recovery was affected from the accused and that the accused had

been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of main

accused, so dictum of Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4

SCC 1 would come into play. The Supreme Court, holding that the

High Court fell into error, observed that advantage of Tofan Singh

dictum could be extended to the accused at the time of seeking

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 15 of 23 pages

regular bail or at the stage of final arguments after trial, but not at the

stage of anticipatory bail.

10 Further, as mentioned above, proceedings under Section 82 CrPC

have already been initiated against the accused/applicants as they

opted not to join investigation despite service of notices. That being

so, the accused/applicants (Satvinder Kaur and Tajinder Kaur) are

not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. In the case of Srikant

Upadhyay & Another vs State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282,

the Supreme Court examined the issue of considering an anticipatory

bail application, where the applicant is under proclamation

proceedings, and concluded thus:

“25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail

is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that

bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be

said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the

question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious

discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of

each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court

concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection

or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage

of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it

may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We

shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an

interim protection pending consideration of such application as the

Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against

unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in

eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or

proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the

extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of

the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 16 of 23 pages

the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying

orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.”

(emphasis supplied)

After traversing through a number of judicial precedents, same

principles of law were reiterated by the Supreme Court more recently

in the case titled: Serious Frauds Investigation Office vs Aditya

Sarda, 2025 INSC 477. The Supreme Court observed: “It cannot be

gainsaid that the judicial time of every court, even of Magistrate’s

Court is as precious and valuable as that of the High Courts and the

Supreme Court. The accused are duty bound to cooperate the trial

courts in proceeding further with the cases and bound to remain

present in the Court as and when required by the Court. Not

allowing the Courts to proceed further with the cases by avoiding

execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the

Court, and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook, would

certainly amount to interfering with and causing obstruction in the

administration of justice.”

11. During arguments, major emphasis of learned senior counsel for

accused/applicants was that vide communication dated 28.03.2019

issued by the Directorate of Health Services to the Drug Controllers

across the country, Buprenorphine was allowed to be purchased,

stored and sold by psychiatrists; and that despite their repeated

queries under the RTI Act, no specific information was received by

the accused/applicants regarding the legal provision and procedure

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 17 of 23 pages

under which registration has to be mandatorily got done by a

deaddiction center so as to enable it to deal with Buprenorphine,

therefore the accused/applicants, who had employed two

psychiatrists in their deaddiction centers committed no offence.

11.1 The strength of this argument has to be tested keeping in mind the

overall scheme of the Act, which is a prohibitive legislation. Section

8(c) of the Act stipulates in no uncertain terms that no person shall

produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse,

use, consume or import/export any narcotic drug or psychotropic

substance; and an exception to this rule is carved out for medical or

scientific purpose and in the manner and to the extent provided by

the Act or the Rules or Orders made thereunder. For dealing with

commercial quantity in violation of, inter alia amongst others,

Section 8(c) of the Act, the provision under Section 22 of the Act

prescribes punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which

shall not less than ten years, but which may extend to twenty years.

11.2 Merely because the authorities concerned did not clearly answer

queries of the accused/applicants, the latter cannot claim unfettered

right to deal in the contraband, that too in commercial quantity.

11.3 The argument under analysis also fails on careful scrutiny of the

communication dated 28.03.2019, which reads as follows. Earlier,

sublingual tablets of Buprenorphine were approved subject to the

conditions that it shall be supplied only to the “designated”

deaddiction centers “set up by the Government of India” and

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 18 of 23 pages

“hospitals” with deaddiction facilities; that the list of centers to

whom the substance is supplied should be furnished to the Drugs

Controller General periodically indicating the quantity supplied to

each center; and that even the manufacturing license was to be

granted keeping in view those conditions. Subsequently, the

Association of Psychiatrists sought withdrawal of restrictions for

supply of the substance to the deaddiction centers because of

extremely less availability of deaddiction centers, improper

definition of “Deaddiction Centers” and lack of access of the same to

the psychiatrists. After discussion, the 38

th

Subject Experts

Committee (Neurology & Psychiatry) recommended “modification”

of the earlier restriction to the effect that the substance should be

allowed to be supplied to psychiatric clinics and hospitals also

instead of earlier condition that the same should be supplied to

deaddiction centers only. It clearly shows the tightly regulated

permissibility of use of Buprenorphine. There is nothing to show that

the deaddiction centers run by the accused/applicants are the

designated centers set up by the Government of India or the same

form part of any hospital or are psychiatric clinics. There is also

nothing to show that Buprenorphine was being purchased/stored/sold

by either or both of the two doctors allegedly employed by the

deaddiction centers of the accused/applicants. Rather, according to

the records of the deaddiction centers seized during investigation, the

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 19 of 23 pages

contraband drugs were sold even on the days when neither of the

doctors was on duty.

11.4 Further, it would be significant to note that out of those two doctors

employed in the said deaddiction centers, only one, namely Dr.Vipin

Nain is psychiatrist; while the other doctor, namely Dr.Sanjay Modi

is a pediatrician as reflected from his stamp of DCH (Diploma Child

Health). Even in his statement recorded by the IO, it was stated by

Dr.Modi that he is a pediatrician.

12. As regards the argument that Buprenorphine is a deaddiction drug,

covered under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, one cannot ignore the

explicit provision under Section 80 of the Act, which stipulates that

provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the

Drugs & Cosmetics Act. Besides, in the case of Union of India vs

Sanjeev V Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held

thus:

“25. In other words, dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic

substances is permissible only when such dealing is for medical

purposes or scientific purposes. Further, the mere fact that the

dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is for a

medical or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo

created under section 8(c). Such a dealing must be in the manner

and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders

made thereunder. Sections 9 and 10 enable the Central and the State

Governments respectively to make rules permitting and regulating

various aspects contemplated under Section 8(c), of dealing in

narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.”

(emphasis supplied)

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 20 of 23 pages

13. In the case of accused/applicant Manoj, as mentioned above, apart

from being Manager-cum-CEO of the deaddiction centers, he is also

one of the trustees of the Trust running those centers. Accused Manoj

maintained and kept under his control the entire records of purchase,

storage and sale of Buprenorphine. According to investigation, he

was connected with each of the remaining accused/ applicant and

was the link between consumers and peddlers. Further, accused

Manoj was involved in destroying the trail of evidence by erasing

Batch Numbers from packaging and he enlisted fictitious persons as

medically prescribed patients/consumers of Buprenorphine,

including Abu Talib, even during the period when he was in jail. The

apprehension of prosecution is not baseless that if released on bail,

accused Manoj is likely to destroy evidence, as

further/supplementary investigation is ongoing.

14. As regards accused Amit Khanna, he is the Settlor of the Humanity

Welfare Trust that was running the deaddiction centers through the

accused/applicants and earned unlawful profits of 300% from sale of

Buprenorphine. The keys of the stock almirah were found in

possession of accused Amit Khanna at the time of seizure. It is

accused Amit Khanna only, who was in direct contact with the

owners of the Buprenorphine supplier Rusan Pharma. It is he only,

who appointed accused Manoj and forged signatures of purchasers of

Buprenorphine. Claiming that he is the mastermind, investigators

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 21 of 23 pages

express need for access to accused Amit Khanna for custodial

interrogation.

15. As regards accused Satvinder Kaur, it is nobody’s case that being

wife of accused Amit Khanna, she is merely namesake owner of the

two deaddiction centers. Accused Satvinder Kaur was actively

running the deaddiction centers, engaged in illegal purchase/storage

and sale of Buprenorphine. Despite service of notice under Section

67 of the Act, accused/applicant Satvinder Kaur did not join

investigation, and proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated

against her, which also is a factor to be kept in mind. Being actively

involved in running of the said two deaddiction centers, accused

Satvinder Kaur is the direct beneficiary of illegal peddling of

Buprenorphine. The investigators need her presence for custodial

interrogation in the ongoing investigation.

16. The role ascribed to accused Tajinder Kaur is similar to that of

accused/applicant Manoj. In her capacity as an active worker of the

deaddiction centers, she was connected with all the remaining

accused persons, including Pawan, Vikrant, Sonu and Satya Prakash

Tiwari. The evidence collected in investigation shows payments

received by accused Tajinder Kaur from Sachin Tiwari towards

purchase of the contraband. Like accused Satvinder Kaur, she also

did not join investigation despite service of notice under Section 67

of the Act, and proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 22 of 23 pages

against her as well. The presence of accused Tajinder also is sought

by the investigators for custodial interrogation.

17. In nutshell, the vital circumstances in these cases are: the enormity

of intricate web dealing illegally in Buprenorphine; status of

investigation being ongoing; recovery of commercial quantity of the

contraband from the accused/applicants; two of the accused/

applicants facing action under Section 82 CrPC; requirement of

custodial investigation of the accused/applicants, as expressed by the

investigators; and absence of any reasonable ground, which could

satisfy this court into believing that the accused/applicants are not

guilty of the offences alleged against them and/or they are not likely

to commit an offence if released on bail.

18. In the light of the aforesaid, none of the accused/applicants deserves

the liberty sought by them. Consequently, Bail Application of accused

Manoj and Anticipatory Bail Applications of accused Amit Khanna,

Satvinder Kaur and Tajinder Kaur are dismissed.

19. The accused Amit Khanna, Satvinder Kaur and Tajinder Kaur, who

had been granted interim protection from arrest shall surrender

immediately before the IO/SHO concerned.

AMIT KHANNA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

& connected matters Page 23 of 23 pages

20. Nothing observed herein shall have bearing on the final outcome of

the trial. Copy hereof be immediately sent to the concerned Jail

Superintendent for being conveyed to accused Manoj.

GIRISH KATHPALIA

(JUDGE)

JULY 07, 2025