Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
SANJAY KUMAR BHARTIYA – Petitioner
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 224/2016
Decided On : 18-02-2016
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jaideep Malik, Advs.
Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Adv. for DRI.
The seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner's conduct, and the disentitlement of relief under Section 37 of the NDPS Act influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - NDPS Act - Sections 25A, 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, highlighting the offences related to controlled substances and the implications of Section 37 of the Act. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the disentitlement of relief under Section 37 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC in a case under Sections 25A/29 NDPS Act. The petitioner was implicated in a case involving illegal trade of controlled substances, and the court discussed the petitioner's failure to comply with investigation and the seriousness of the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct, failure to comply with investigation, and the seriousness of the allegations disentitled the petitioner to the relief of anticipatory bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's involvement in illegal trade of controlled substances, failure to comply with investigation, and the disentitlement of relief under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the petitioner's conduct, and the disentitlement of relief under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner's conduct.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. Vide this application under Section 438 Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in SC No. 06A/2015 Vide F. No. DRI/HQ/GI/338/XVIII/ENQ-91NT – NIL/2015 under Sections 25A/29 NDPS Act.
2. Mr Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been registered by DRI officials under Section 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) wherein the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated who is only an ordinary director and is not concerned with day-to-day affairs of the company. No recovery has been effected either from the petitioner or at his instance. He is ready to join investigation. The provisions of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. The offence allegedly pertains to a controlled substance which is punishable under Section 25A of the Act where no minimum punishment has been provided, therefore, there is no embargo of Section 37 of the Act. Some of the co-accused have already been released on bail. As such the petitioner be also granted protection.
3. The bail application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel for the respondent – DRI on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail either in law or on facts. The petitioner had approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court at the very initial stage of investigation wherein interim protection was granted to him vide order dated 31.08.2015 and he was directed to join investigation. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the directions. Instead simultaneously, he filed an application for anticipatory bail before learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Ultimately the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.09.2015. The second application seeking same relief was dismissed. The application moved by the petitioner before the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla was dismissed as withdrawn after hearing arguments at length on 09.09.2015. There is no change in the circumstances. Rather the situation has worsened as now despite execution of process under Section 82 Cr.PC, the petitioner has failed to appear. A complaint for non-compliance of summons issued by the competent officer of the respondent department has been filed before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts for offence punishable under Section 172 and 174 IPC.
4. Counsel further submits that the address given in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application is wrong as when the summons were sent on this very address, the family members of the petitioner reported that the petitioner had not come to the premises for a long time and they are not having any information. Copies of the reports on the summons / warrants have been filed.
5. Counsel further submits that the charge-sheet had to be filed against 12 persons including petitioner within 60 days as number of persons are involved and qua some of the accused the offences were such that if the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days, they would have been entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.PC. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the provisions of Section 37 of the Act are attracted. Reference was made to the averments made in the complaint where it is specifically alleged that the petitioner is the managing director of M/s G.T. Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., Kala Amb. (HP) and 75.370 kg of Ketamine Hydrochloride, 20 kg of Alprazolam Hydrochloride, both psychotropic substance under the Act and 6000 tablets containing pseudoephedrine, a controlled substance under the Act were found. It was further submitted that the investigation reveals that a conspiracy was hatched at Delhi in the year 2014 amongst persons operating their individual business at different places to enrich themselves by illegal trade of controlled substances under the cover of their individual legal business by sourcing controlled substances from manu
