Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Rapido Cab Driver in NDPS Case; Mere Presence in Vehicle Carrying Contraband Not Sufficient To Keep Individual Behind Bars
Case Name: Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 04 May 2026
Citation: CRM-M-13258-2026
Bench: Justice Subhas Mehla
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a Rapido cab driver arrested in an NDPS case involving recovery of commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets from passengers travelling in his cab. The Court held that at the bail stage, mere presence of the driver in the vehicle was insufficient to conclusively infer conscious possession, particularly when investigation revealed that he had no prior contact with the co-accused passengers who had booked the cab through the Rapido application.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 135 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga.
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was driving a vehicle bearing registration No. CH-02AA-9293 in which two bags kept on the rear seat allegedly contained 15,000 Tramadol tablets. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused Aman and Mohamad Arshad, was travelling in the said vehicle at the time of recovery.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and was merely operating a cab booked through the Rapido application by the co-accused passengers. It was contended that no recovery had been effected from his personal possession and that the contraband belonged to the passengers occupying the rear seat of the vehicle. The petitioner also relied upon his clean antecedents and the fact that he had remained in custody for more than five months.
The State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that recovery involved commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets and that the petitioner was apprehended together with the co-accused persons in the same vehicle. However, upon a specific query from the Court, the State conceded that investigation had revealed that the petitioner was not in contact with the co-accused before the booking of the cab ride.
While considering the petition, the High Court observed that the petitioner was admittedly working as a cab driver and the vehicle had been booked by the co-accused through the Rapido application. The Court noted that the alleged contraband was recovered from the rear seat occupied by the passengers and not from the personal possession of the petitioner.
The Court further took note of the State’s admission that there was no prior contact between the petitioner and the co-accused before booking of the cab. In these circumstances, the Court observed that whether the petitioner had conscious possession or knowledge of the contraband was a matter to be adjudicated during trial.
The High Court also considered the petitioner’s custody period, clean antecedents and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial. Reiterating the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court held that continued incarceration would serve no fruitful purpose.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.