Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Sultan Ansari – Appellant
Versus
Dri – Respondent
Bail Appln. 912 of 2017
Decided On : 04-09-2023
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Sections 22/25/25A/26/29/30/38 - The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, particularly focusing on the illegal trade of controlled and psychotropic substances, the role of the accused in falsification of statutory records, and the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The accused sought regular bail in a case involving illegal trade of controlled and psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, as a manager-cum-chemist, was involved in falsification of statutory records and active participation in the illegal trade.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had a vital role in the larger conspiracy, was aware of the illegal diversion of substances, and had indulged in falsification of statutory records to enable the illicit trade. The court also noted the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
Issues: The issues involved the accused's role in the illegal trade, falsification of records, and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the gravity of the offence, the accused's knowledge and participation in the illegal activities, and the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application, considering the gravity of the offence and the accused's involvement in the illegal trade.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The present application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C'.), has been filed by the applicant/accused seeking regular bail in Case No. 7520/2016 (old SC No. 06A/2015) registered at Police Station Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ('DRI'), New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 22/25/25A/26/29/ 30/38 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act').
2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that the DRI had received a specific information that members of a syndicate, operating from different places, were engaged in illegal trade of psychotropic substances and controlled substances under the NDPS Act. On the basis of the said information, the teams of DRI had carried out search operations simultaneously at various places which had led to recovery of contraband substances on 19.08.2015 and 20.08.2015. It is alleged that on 19.08.2015, 250 kg of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride, a controlled substance, had been seized from M/s. Lakshya Traders, Shakarpur, Delhi, which had been clandestinely and fraudulently removed from M/s. G.T. Biopharma Private Limited, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh on 17.08.2015. During another raid conducted on 20.08.2015, the officials had seized 100 kg of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride from M/s. Akash Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Kamla Market, Asaf Ali Road, which had been received from M/s. Daffohils Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Dehradun and had been consigned to M/s. Weishorn Bio Tech, Delhi. It is alleged that one Manoj Kumar Nayak (co-accused) was the proprietor of M/s Lakshya Traders, and the other co-accused D.P. Saxena was the proprietor of M/s. Weishorn Bio Tech, Delhi. On 19.08.2015, the officials of DRI had also conducted a raid at the premises of M/s G.T. Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. wherein 75 kg of Ketamine Hydrochloride and 20kg of Alprazolam Hydrochloride, both psychotropic substance, and 6000 tablets containing Pseudoephedrine, a controlled substance, had been found unaccounted in the statutory records. A raid had also been carried out at the premises of M/s. Daffohills Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Dehradun which had led to recovery of 25 kg Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride, which had also been found unaccounted in the statutory records. Moreover, 1000 kg of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride and 175 kg of Ephedrine, both controlled substance, had also been recovered at premises of M/s. Dhari Chemical, Vadodra. As per DRI, these substances were to be dispatched to M/s. G.T. Biopharma Private Limited and M/s Daffohills Laboratories Private Limited.
3. The present applicant/accused was arrested on 20.08.2015 on the allegations that he was also a part of the larger conspiracy and was employed as manager-cum-chemist at M/s. G.T. Biopharma Private Limited. Charges were framed against the applicant vide order dated 07.08.2018 under Sections 22/25A/29 of NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant was arrested in this case on 20.08.2015 i.e. more than eight years ago and has remained in judicial custody for about four years. It is stated that he was released on interim bail as per HPC guidelines and he never misused the liberty granted to him. It is also argued that the applicant is suffering from several medical ailments and was also granted interim bail for treatment of kidney failure. It is stated that all the co-accused persons are either already on bail or have been declared proclaimed offenders by the learned Trial Court, and only the present applicant continues to remain in judicial custody. It is argued that the applicant was only an employee i.e. chemist in the accused firm i.e. M/s. G.T. Biopharma Private Limited and he had no role in the commission of alleged offence. It is stated that the applicant was not involved in either procuring or disposing of the psychotropic substance and nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession. It is stated that since there is no material on
The medical condition and treatment of an accused cannot wait till the trial is concluded, and the accused has the right to seek treatment where his family is located to avoid additional financial bu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the gravity of drug trafficking offences and the legislative intent to p....
The judgment establishes the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need to satisfy reasonable grounds for believing in the innocence of the accused and ensuring t....
The prohibition of activities related to controlled substances without proper registration and the potential consequences of large quantities of controlled substances being illegally exported were ce....
The court ruled that serious charges under the NDPS Act warranted the application of strict bail conditions, emphasizing the organized nature of the alleged narcotics trafficking and concerns regardi....
Advancements in drug laws prohibit bail when charges involve commercial quantities, underscoring the seriousness of drug trafficking offenses.
The court emphasized that bail for drug offenses requires proof of innocence and likelihood of non-reoffending, in line with stringent statutory provisions to combat drug trafficking.
The judgment established that the gravity of the offence, the impact of the illicit drug trade, and the concept of conscious possession are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility under the N....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
