GUJARAT HIGH COURT
B.N. Karia, J.
Harshal Prafulbhai Desai —Applicant
versus
State of Gujarat —Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No.17496 of 2020
Decided on 1.2.2021
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 37—Bail—Embargo—What is necessary for Court to examine question of grant of bail where Section 37 applies is that court should be satisfied having regard to material available on record as there are sufficient grounds with applicant that he may not be convicted—If probabilities are that applicant can not be convicted then court can grant bail subject to further conditions being satisfied that applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail—Section 37 is not a complete bar to grant of bail to accused of offence under NDPS Act—This section stipulates mandatory conditions to be satisfied that person accused under NDPS Act is entitled to be released on bail. (Para 12)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Sections 37 and 67 read with Sections 22, 23, 25, 25A and 29—Bail application—Applicant has no antecedent and trial would take long time—He is not likely to run away from justice if he is released on bail—If probabilities are there, applicant may not be convicted, court can grant bail subject to further conditions being satisfied that applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail—After filing of charge-sheet during pendency of this application, no further evidence is placed on record involving present applicant in offence—Bail granted against stringent conditions—If breach of any of conditions is committed, Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. (Paras 19 to 24)
Result: Application allowed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
B.N. Karia, J.—The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with complaint being DRI F No. DRI/AZU/SRU/A/NDPS-01/2020 registered on 09.07.2020 with the department of Revenue Intelligence, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 22, 23, 25, 25A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “NDPS Act”).
2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant; learned APP for the respondent State and learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent no.2
3. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that applicant is quite innocent and has not committed any of the offence as alleged against him in the FIR and no prima facie case is made against the present applicant. That, the applicant has been wrongly arraigned as an accused and applicant had not committed any offence as alleged. That applicant is one of the proprietor of M/s. Orlando Healthcare since the year 2012 and the said firm was engaged in trading of pharmaceutical materials. The applicant joined M/s. Ardor Drugs Pvt. Ltd. as a director only in the year 2019. It is highly uncertain and unreliable that the applicant has conspired and ensured to manufacture and export commercial quantity of contraband as he had just joined Ardor Pvt. Ltd. in 2019. That, the applicant being the proprietor of M/s. Orlando Healthcare since 2012, there is no single instance of violation of any law much less the provisions of the NDPS Act, in the past. That applicant has not engaged in commission of any offences as alleged in the complaint. That a bare reading of the complaint also at no point reveals that the applicant had any other role other than that of being the Director of Ms. Ardor Ltd. Since the year 2019. Further more, the applicant also doubts if the papers where the applicant’s signatures were sought were blank papers in the first place. That the purported statement and the signature therein have been taken by coercion, duress, involuntarily and without the free will of the applicant herein. That applicant has been made to testify against himself. The same is prohibited in law. That the prosecution agency has placed a highly improbable story as the company has already exported 44.79 Lakhs tablets and that has gone unnoticed by the said agency and carved out a probable story that production has been carried out by the company of 60 Lakhs tablets, out of which, 44.79 lakhs tablets were already exported. That the prosecution agency has first carried out a search at Hazira Port and thereafter to shift the burden, M/s. Ardor Drugs Pvt. Ltd and is used as a scapegoat. That retraction letters for all statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act have been sent since all the statements were recorded under duress and without free will. The statements were already drafted and the accused were forcefully made to sign the story in order to corroborate the story of the Investigating Authorities. Moreover, the applicant has not made any confession/admission of the alleged offence before the DRI officers. That applicant has denied giving the statements placed forward by the Respondent Agency/DRI vide a retraction correspondence. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution is neither consistent nor convincing nor cogent nor clear. That the recovered substance was not covered under the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) order 2013.That even on merits looking to the materials placed on record by the prosecution absolutely there is no reliable or trust worthy incriminating material adduced by the prosecution and no person can be kept behind the bar upon such unreliable incriminating material. That the company being Ador Drugs Pvt. Ltd received license to manufacture and export Tramadol based drugs outside India. It is submitted that, allegedly the company Ador Drugs Pvt Ltd. Manufactured more than 100 drugs and had received approval for
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.