The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a Rapido cab driver caught in a major drug seizure, ruling that the 15,000 tramadol tablets found in his vehicle appeared to belong to his passengers rather than the driver himself.
Justice Subhas Mehla, presiding over the case, underscored a fundamental tenet of Indian criminal jurisprudence in his May 4 order, stating that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” The court determined that the driver, Ram Kumar Pandey, should not be denied bail merely as a form of punishment while awaiting trial.
The case dates back to November 19, 2025, when police intercepted a vehicle operating under the Rapido ride-sharing platform. During the search, authorities recovered two bags from the rear seat containing 800 and 700 strips of tablets, respectively. The total haul amounted to 15,000 tablets of tramadol—an opioid medication categorized as a commercial quantity under the law.
Pandey was arrested at the scene alongside two passengers, identified as Aman and Mohamad Arshad. He had remained in custody for over five months following the incident.
A critical factor in the court’s decision was the nature of the booking. Investigation records and the state’s own reply confirmed that Pandey had no prior contact with the co-accused before they booked his cab through the Rapido application.
“At this stage… prima facie, the contraband appears to belong to the customer of the cab,” Justice Mehla noted in the order. While the court clarified that the final determination of ownership remains a “moot question” to be decided during the trial, the evidence suggested Pandey was simply performing his duties as a service provider.
Advocate Atul Aggarwal, representing Pandey, argued that his client had been “falsely implicated.” He emphasized that the recovery was made from the rear seat—occupied by the customers—and that no contraband was found on Pandey’s person.
The court further took into account:
- Clean Record: Pandey has “clean and clear antecedents” with no prior criminal history.
- Time Served: The petitioner had already spent five months and 11 days behind bars since his arrest in November 2025.
- Trial Duration: The court noted that the conclusion of the trial would likely take significant time.
While the Deputy Advocate General argued against bail due to the “commercial quantity” of the seizure, the court found merit in Pandey’s petition. Given the circumstances of the app-based booking and the driver’s lack of connection to the passengers, the bench concluded that no “fruitful purpose” would be served by keeping him in further custody.
