IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.
Mukesh Kumar Khedar, S/o. Suwalal Khedar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 2857 of 2024
Decided On : 20-04-2024
Bail - NDPS Act - Sections 8, 21, 22, 37 - The court interpreted the provisions of the NDPS Act, emphasizing that Section 37 does not impose an absolute bar on bail, and highlighted the necessity for fair investigation and consideration of evidence in bail applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged offenses under the NDPS Act. He claimed to have been falsely implicated, presenting evidence of his qualifications and the legality of his drug purchases, while the prosecution maintained the drugs were recovered during a police operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation was flawed, with significant evidence, including CCTV footage and purchase bills, not properly considered by the Investigating Officer, leading to a conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act considering the circumstances of the case and the quality of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were satisfied, emphasizing the importance of a fair investigation and the presumption of innocence.
Result: The second bail application is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail.
ORDER :
Anil Kumar Upman, J.
1. This is second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner who has been arrested on 09.08.2023 in connection with FIR No.419/2023 Police Station Reengus, Sikar for offences punishable under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the previous bail application (No.12357/2023) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing chargesheet in the matter. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and thus, the petitioner has filed this second bail application.
3. Learned counsel submits that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is qualified Pharmacist and running medical store namely Unique Medical at Reengus on the strength of requisite certificate and license issued in favour of the petitioner by Rajasthan Pharmacy Council. It is contended that on 21.05.2023, the petitioner placed a purchase order for 100 bottles of Monocoff Plus Syrup (Batch No.TBHW044) from Lifecare Pharma. Those goods (cough syrup) were sent to the petitioner by Lifecare Pharma through courier on 10.06.2023 along with the bills/invoice (Annex.5). As per the prosecution case, by effect of notification dated 02.06.2023 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, manufacturing, sell and distribution of Chlopheniramine Maleate plus Codeine Syrup has been prohibited. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner received the drugs in pursuance of the purchase order therefore, the drugs was found in his medical store. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not sold even a single bottle of recovered drugs after the notification dated 02.06.2023, which shows his bonafide.
4. Learned counsel submits that the incident narrated by the police in the FIR is false and fabricated. He contends that the alleged recovery of contraband was not made at the place where it has been shown in the chargesheet. The true and real fact is that the recovery was made by the police from the medical store of the petitioner whereas in the chargesheet, recovery has been shown effected at Azad Chowk, Reengus. Narrating the actual sequence of the occurrence, learned counsel contends that on 08.08.2023, at 10:02:46 PM, a police van came at the medical store of the petitioner which is situated near Govt. Hospital, Reengus which is far away from the Azad Chowk. At 10:05:40 PM, the police van left the medical store. At 10:13:14 PM, the police van again came to the medical store and entered into the medical store of the petitioner and recovered the alleged cough syrup. After staying there for about 10-11 minutes, the police van departed the medical store. At about 10:29:45 PM, Constable Ajay Kumar along with the petitioner in red colour of Verna Car of the accused petitioner, went Azad Chowk, Reengus which is 2 Kms. away from the shop of the petitioner and all formalities were completed at Azad Chowk. The CCTV footage submitted by the father of the petitioner to the IO, clearly reveal that on 09.08.2023 at 01:26 AM, the police van and a white colour Eco Sports Car, belonging to Drug Inspector Manvendra Singh Bajiya, again came and stopped in front of the medical store of the petitioner. The red colour varna car of the petitioner is also seen coming there at the same time in the CCTV footage. While as per the prosecution case, during routine checking, on 08.08.2023 at 11:55 PM, the police intercepted the petitioner and the co-accused Gaurav Kaushik in a red colour varna car (No.RJ 14 CR 9760) at Azad Chowk, Reengus and during checking, 100 bottles of cough syrup namely Chlorpheniramine maleate codeine phsphae syrup (100 Ml each) were recovered. Learned counsel submits that the father of the petitioner has also submitted a detailed representation along with CCTV footage and the
The court established that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute bar to bail, and emphasized the necessity of fair investigation in criminal proceedings.
Bail under NDPS Act requires meeting stringent conditions; prior criminal history and commercial quantity of drugs warrant denial of bail.
In cases of prolonged detention pending trial, especially with procedural deficiencies, the personal liberty of the accused must be prioritized, warranting the granting of bail.
The court established that an arrest without evidence and without prior leave for further investigation is illegal, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements.
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, and failure to adhere to these provisions can lead to the grant of bail.
Narcotic Substances - Bail rejected - Petitioner has been found in possession of contraband of commercial quantity - Court is unable to record a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believin....
The court ruled that searches conducted by unauthorized officers under the NDPS Act are illegal, warranting the grant of bail due to prolonged detention without trial.
Point of law: Recovery of contraband – Rejection of bail - contraband article is more than the commercial quantity and the investigation is still pending
Bail granted in NDPS commercial quantity case where proprietor absent from raid site, linked only by inadmissible co-accused custody statement and expired rent agreement, satisfying Section 37 condit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.