The gravity of the offence, admissibility of recorded statements, and the significance of incriminating evidence are crucial factors in determining bail applications under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

P.K. Lohra, J.

These two bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are preferred by accused-petitioners, who are facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 8/22, 25, 29& 38 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 before Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Sirohi, edificed on FIR No.D.R.I/A.Z.U.G.I.- 01/NDPS-01/2015 at Sub Unit, Jodhpur.

2. The charge against accused-petitioners is that they were involved in manufacturing of Mephedrone at M/s Rishi Mine Chem Pvt. Ltd., Abu Road, inasmuch as, petitioner Pranav Kansara is Director of Rishi Mine Chem Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner Manohar Lal Anani is one of the beneficiaries of the said drug, at whose instance the drug was manufactured. Although Mephedrone was earlier considered as pharmaceutical drug but after considering its ill-effects being narcotic drug and psychotropic substance, Government of India issued a Notification on 5th of January, 2015 in this regard with the solemn object to take measures for preventing and combating abuse of and illicit traffic of the said drug. As a consequence thereof Mephedrone was added at Serial No.110B of the Schedule appended to the NDPS Act. The allegation against the accused persons are that despite Notification and having knowledge about narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, on two occasions, they got manufactured huge quantity of said drug, i.e., 136 kgs. in the month of April, 2015, and 218.31 kgs. on 25th of May, 2015, on job work basis.

3. The precise contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that entire edifice of prosecution case is founded on the statements of accused-petitioners recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the legal position about admissibility of said statements is still fluid. Therefore, learned counsel contends that accused persons be enlarged on bail. Learned Senior Counsel has also strenuously canvassed that other incriminating evidence, the so called WhatsApp conversation is per se not inculpatory in nature inasmuch as that conversation is having no nexus whatsoever with the manufacturing of the drug or its process.

4. Learned counsel for U.O.I., Mr. Vipul Singhvi, while relying on Notification dated 5th of January, 2015, has urged that two consignments of huge quantity of Mephedrone drug manufactured clandestinely at Rishi Mine Chem Pvt. Ltd. is sufficient to involve petitioner Pranav Kansara for the alleged offence being Director of the company. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are umpteen materials available on record to show direct nexus of accused Manohar Lal Anani as beneficiary of both these consignments so as to show prima facie his criminal delinquency for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel, Mr. Singhvi, has urged that looking to the gravity of offence, i.e., manufacturing of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, which is a menace to the society, it would not be appropriate to enlarge accused-petitioners on bail. Mr. Singhvi has also submitted that statements of accused persons recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act can be relied upon and are not hit by the embargo envisaged under sections 24 to 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, is yet another factor of significance for declining bail plea of the petitioners.

5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mahesh Bora, for accused-petitioners, learned counsel for U.O.I., Mr. Vipul Singhvi, and thoroughly scanned charge-sheet with allied papers.

6. Upon examining the matter in its entirety and looking to the gravity and magnitude of the offence and taking into account a very vital fact that trial has not yet commenced, I feel dissuaded to exercise discretion in favour of accused-petitioners for grant of bail.

7. Therefore, at this stage, while refraining to make any comment on merits of case, which may prejudice cause of either of the parties, in my view, bail plea of both the accused-petitioners is liable to be thwarted.

8. Consequently, both these bail applications are rejected.