Bombay High Court
Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky vs Union Of India And Anr on 25 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:36428-DB
14-WP-3316-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JYOTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 3316 OF 2025
RAJESH
MANE Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky
Age : 43 years,
Digitally signed
R/o. K 56/114-6, Near DAV College
by JYOTI Ausanganj Rani Fatak, Ausanganj
RAJESH MANE Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221001. ... Petitioner
Date:
2025.08.25
19:26:57 +0530 V/s.
1. Union Of India,
Through Narcotics Control Bureau
Mumbai Zonal Unit.
2. State of Maharashtra
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Mumbai. ... Respondents
----------
Mr. Anish Pareira a/w. Mr. Taraq Sayed a/w. Ms. Ashwini Achari, for
Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Halwasia a/w. Smt. S.S.Halwasia, for Respondent No.1/NCB.
Mr. Y. Y. Dabke, Addl. P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State.
----------
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th AUGUST, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON: 25th AUGUST, 2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)
1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard
finally with the consent of parties.
Mane 1/7
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:25 :::
14-WP-3316-2025.odt
2) The Petitioner contends that he was arrested on 27th May 2025 at
11.04 a.m. and produced before the learned Magistrate only on 29 th May 2025.
Such delayed production renders the arrest illegal, entitling the Petitioner to the
following reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
(a) This Hon’ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
bestowed upon by the Constitution of India under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ in
the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.02 to provide for
Flight Manifest of Indigo Airline bearing no. 6E-5292 Varanasi to
Mumbai dated 27.03.2025.
(b) This Hon’ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
bestowed upon by the Constitution of India under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Hon’ble Court may declare the arrest of the
Petitioner as illegal and in gross violation of the fundamental rights of
the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of
India in relation to F.NO. NCB/MZU/CR-08/registered at the instance of
the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit.
3) The prayer clause (a) seeks a Writ of Mandamus against
Interglobe Aviation Ltd (Indigo Airlines). By an order of 1 st August, 2025,
leave was granted to the Petitioner to delete Respondent No.2 as a party
Respondent. The amendment was carried out by the Petitioner. Upon deletion
of Respondent No.2, prayer clause (a) does not survive.
4) As regards the prayer clause (b), the facts are summarised as
Mane 2/7
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:25 :::
14-WP-3316-2025.odtfollows:
a) On 3rd March 2025, the officials of Respondent No. 1 seized 7,200
bottles of Codeine Phosphate (contraband) from one Jayshankar
Prasad Phoolchand Gaud (original accused no. 1). He was arrested
for offenses under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 22(c),
28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
b) During investigation, Jayshankar disclosed that the contraband
was meant for Mohammad Husain Khan (original accused no. 2).
A search of accused no. 2’s premises led to the recovery of 10,800
Nitrazepam tablets and 120 bottles of Codeine Phosphate.
Accused no. 2 further revealed that these substances had been
supplied by the present Petitioner.
c) On 27th March 2025, Respondent No. 1 issued summons to the
Petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, calling upon him to
tender his statement. The summons was served at Varanasi and
bears the Petitioner’s acknowledgment signature.
5) Mr. Pareira, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that on
27th March 2025, the Petitioner was apprehended by officials of Respondent
Mane 3/7
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:25 :::
14-WP-3316-2025.odt
No.1 at Varanasi. The incident is captured in CCTV footage, screenshots of
which are annexed to the petition. He was first taken from his residence to his
shop, where he was arrested at 11:04 a.m. Thereafter, he was compelled to
book his own ticket for a same-day evening flight to Mumbai. Upon arrival, he
was taken to the office of the Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”), where his
statement was recorded. It is falsely shown that the Petitioner is arrested on
28th March 2025 at 14:30 hours. He was finally produced before the learned
Magistrate only on 29th March, 2025. It is contended that the arrest on 27 th
March, 2025 at Varanasi and detention until 29th March, 2025 is illegal, and the
reliefs sought in the petition deserve to be granted. Reliance was placed on the
judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kaushik R. Thakkar v/s.
State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online Bom 1493, in support of the above
submissions.
6) Mr. Halwasia, learned APP for Respondent No.1, denied these
allegations and relied on the affidavit dated 18 th August 2025 filed by Mr.
Satish Singh, Sub-Inspector, NCB, to oppose the petition. He denied that the
Petitioner was arrested at Varanasi. He submitted that the Petitioner traveled
voluntarily from Varanasi to Mumbai pursuant to the summons, without any
coercion. The statements of accused nos.1 and 2 disclosed the Petitioner’s
Mane 4/7
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:25 :::
14-WP-3316-2025.odt
involvement, which the Petitioner has admitted in his own statement recorded
by the NCB. The Petitioner was thereafter arrested on 28th March 2025 at
14:30 hours and produced before the learned Magistrate on 29 th March 2025.
Thus, it was contended that the arrest is valid and the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7) We are heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
records. The Learned APP has drawn our attention to the voluntary statement
recorded on 28th March 2025 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as well as the
Memo of Arrest dated of the same date recording the Petitioner’s arrest at
17:30 hours at the NCB, Mumbai. The statement and the memo of Arrest are
marked as ‘X-1’ and ‘X-2’ for identification. We have also considered the
CCTV screenshots annexed at pages 22 to 27 of the Petition.
8) We are unable to accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Pareira,
learned counsel for the Petitioner. The summons issued under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act was served on the Petitioner at Varanasi, who acknowledged receipt
thereof. The Petitioner was thus aware of the purpose and import of the
summons. There is no material on record to substantiate the allegation that he
was arrested on 27th March 2025 at the shop. The CCTV footage from the
Mane 5/7
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:25 :::
14-WP-3316-2025.odt
Varanasi shop does not disclose any element of force or any arrest being made
as alleged by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has booked his own flight tickets
from Varanasi to Mumbai. It would have been a different matter, had NCB
booked his tickets.
9) We find that the Petitioner’s statement was then recorded on 28 th
March 2025 at the NCB office, Mumbai. The Memo of Arrest, duly informing
him of the grounds of arrest, records his arrest at 17:30 hours on the same date.
The grounds of arrest are furnished to the Petitioner. The Memo of arrest bears
the Petitioner’s acknowledgment signature. He was thereafter produced before
the learned Magistrate on 29th March 2025. We therefore hold that the arrest
was carried out in accordance with due process and does not suffer from any
illegality.
10) The Petitioner’s reliance on the judgment of Kashik Thakkar
(supra), is misplaced. The facts in Kaushik Thakkar were entirely different, i.e.
the petitioner therein was taken into custody at 7.00 a.m. on 16 th August, 2024
and was produced before the Magistrate at 1.15 p.m./2.50 p.m. on 17 th August,
2024. Thus, it was held that the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India were violated. That is not so
here as is discussed above. In the present case, we find the Petitioner has been
Mane 6/7
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:25 :::
14-WP-3316-2025.odt
produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours.
11) In view of the above, the Petition is devoid of merit and is
dismissed. We make it clear that our observations are with reference to the
detention and would not influence the Trial Court or affect the merits of the
case.
12) Rule is discharged. There shall be no order of costs.
( GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Mane 7/7 ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2025 21:22:25 :::