Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran recently granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a matter arising from the seizure of cough syrup bottles, with an FIR registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court held that an accused's obligation to cooperate with investigation does not extend to self-incrimination and accordingly found no grounds warranting custodial interrogation merely because the accused had declined to hand over his mobile phone to the investigating agency. The Court directed that if the accused is arrested in connection with the said FIR, he shall be released on bail forthwith on terms fixed by the trial Court.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station, Semariya, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, pertaining to the seizure of 710 bottles of cough syrup. The accused was not named in the FIR; however, the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered belonged to him. Offences were alleged under Sections 8, 21, and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Sections 5 and 13 of the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950.

Also Read: S.7 IBC | Corporate Debtor's Ability To Pay Debt Irrelevant Before Admitting Insolvency Petition; CIRP Initiation Mandatory Once Debt And Default Established : Supreme Court

The accused approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur seeking anticipatory bail, which was denied. He thereafter approached the Supreme Court, which, by an interim order, granted him protection from arrest subject to his joining and cooperating with the investigation. The State, in its counter affidavit, acknowledged that the accused had joined the investigation but contended that he had not surrendered his mobile phone to the investigating authorities, thereby alleging non-cooperation.

The Court recorded: “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.”

The Court stated: “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.” The Court recorded: “Cooperating with the investigation does not extend to violation of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination.”

The Court noted: “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.”

The Court stated: “Subject to the appellant continuing to cooperate with the investigation, within the limitations prescribed by law, he is entitled to grant of relief.”

Also Read: Mandatory Veg/Non-Veg Dot Labelling On Toothpastes And Toiletries Under Review: Delhi High Court Seeks Joint Decision From DCGI And Legal Metrology Amid Conflicting Stands

The Court recorded: “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.”

The court directed “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. The appellant shall also abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Tushar Giri, AOR; Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv.; Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv.; Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Sewa Singh, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. D.S. Parmar, A.A.G.; Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR; Mr. Rajan K Chaurasia, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv.; Ms. Silpi S. Swain, Adv.

Case Title: Vinay Kumar Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 20215 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran