The court ruled that bail may be denied based on the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant's history of offenses under drug laws, emphasizing the need for substantive evidence beyond corroborative statements.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11210015240053 of 2024 registered with Surat D.C.B. Police Station, District Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 30.07.2024 and since then he is in custody. The investigation is over and the Charge-sheet is filed. The only material available against the present applicant in the present offence is in the form of statement of co-accused. It is also the case on behalf of the prosecution that the applicant was in contact with the other co- accused through the mobile phone and the Investigating Officer has also recovered call details in that regard. However, as per the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in case of Bharat Chaudhari vs. Union of India, the call details are corroborative piece of evidence and the said cannot be placed reliance upon in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence. He has, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the applicant is having history of commission of offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act. He has further submitted that the allegations against the applicant, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations made against the applicant, no discretion should be exercised.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents produced on record. As per the case of prosecution, two persons were found in possession of contraband substance mephedrone worth 252.340 gms. Upon their interrogation it was revealed by them that the said stock of contraband substance was supposed to be delivered to the present applicant. It is true that in the present offence, the applicant is sought to be implicated on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. However, on 23.06.2024, another offence came to be registered against the present applicant and in that offence, the applicant was found in conscious possession of the contraband substance mephedrone worth 16.850 gms. This aspect gives reasons to believe that the stock of contraband substance involved in the present offecne was to be delivered to the present applicant. Moreover, the material on record also indicates that the applicant was involved in the retail sale of contraband substance in Surat city.

5. Considering these facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The application is dismissed.