IMPORTANT POINT
Limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail

ORDER :

1. This is the successive bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) with a prayer that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail in connection with the complaint bearing File No.DRI/AZU/SRU/B/NDPS 02/2018 registered with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat Zonal Unit, for having allegedly committed the offence punishable under Section 8(c) along with 9(vi) read with Sections 22, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act” for short).

2. It is mainly alleged in the complaint that the complainant upon receiving specific information conducted a raid at the premises of accused No.1, namely, Kalpesh Dodiya and recovered a piece of paper, which contained the names of various ingredients required to prepare the drug Mephedrone i.e. substance which is prohibited as per the NDPS Act. Further, two polythene bags consisting of Mephedrone and spent Palladium Charcoal powder were also recovered from the possession of accused No.1. On the basis of the information given by accused No.1, the premises belonging to the applicant came to be raided. Thereafter, the factory premises which was leased in favour of the applicant came to be raided and certain chemicals were found in the said premises along with other packing materials. Therefore, accused No.1 and the applicant came to be arrested for commission of the alleged offences punishable under the NDPS Act.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Utkarsh J. Dave for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Parth H. Bhatt appearing for respondent No.2 – DRI and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant had earlier preferred application under Section 439 of the Code. All the three applications came to be withdrawn by him. Thereafter, the successive bail application was also filed by the applicant, which was also withdrawn. Thus, when this Court was not inclined to entertain the case of the applicant on merits, all the applications came to be withdrawn. The present application has been filed by the applicant on the ground of change of circumstance. Therefore, in the present application, learned advocate for the applicant has argued about the change of circumstance after the withdrawal of the last application by the applicant.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the applicant referred the Report dated 20.12.2018 given by the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi. After referring to the said Report, it is submitted that as per the said Report, the substance/material, which was found from the factory premises of the applicant, was not a narcotic substance. At this stage, it is submitted that as per the provisions contained in the NDPS Act, the said substance, which was seized from the factory premises of the applicant, was sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. It is submitted that the Report given by the said Laboratory was received after the withdrawal of the last application filed by the applicant and, therefore, it is a change of circumstance. It is submitted that as per the said Report also, quartz has been detected in Exhbit-A2 and methylamine has been detected in Exhibit-B2. It is submitted that both these substances are not narcotic substances and, therefore, the Report given by the Hyderabad Laboratory is also negative and, therefore, when narcotic substance has not been found, case of the applicant be considered for grant of regular bail.

4.2 Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the case of the prosecution/DRI rests on statement of co-accused, namely, Kalpesh Dodiya and statement of the present applicant, which is recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the statement of the co-accused as well as statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is a very weak piece of evidence.

4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Da