IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Pavan Kumar Agrawal - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal MISC. Bail Application No. 7858 of 2022
Decided On : 17-10-2022
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 2, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 35 – Central Bureau of Narcotics – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace – instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in C.B.N. Case Crime, under Sections 21/22/25/28/30/35 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station C.B.N – Held, Aforesaid facts raise doubts against prosecution case and it give rise to a reasonable ground for prima facie satisfaction at this stage that applicant may not be held guilty of alleged offences – Applicant has no criminal history and, therefore, there is no ground to believe that in case applicant is released on bail, he would again indulge in committing similar offences – Moreover, nothing has been placed on record which may give rise to a reasonable apprehension that in case applicant is released on bail, he would influence witnesses – No other material has been placed by respondent C.B.N., which may indicate that applicant is not entitled to be released on bail – Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ankit Agarval Advocate, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Krishna Agarawal Advocate, the learned counsel representing the Central Bureau of Narcotics (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘C.B.N.’).
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in C.B.N. Case Crime No. 04 of 2021, under Sections 21/22/25/28/30/35 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Act’), Police Station C.B.N. New Delhi.
3. On 26-10-2021, the officers of C.B.N. had conducted a search at the premises of M/s G. M. Traders and it is alleged that various narcotic and psychotropic drugs were recovered from the premises and the applicant was arrested from the premises.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application it has been stated that the applicant’s elder brother Lakshman Agrawal holds a license to ‘Sell, Stock, Exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute by wholesale, drugs other than those specified in Schedule C, C (1) and X’ and he is running his medical store in the name and style of ‘M/s G. M. Traders’ and by means of another license, he has been authorised to deal in drugs specified in Schedule C and C(1), excluding those who specified in Schedule ‘X’.
5. It has further been stated in the affidavit that Sri. Lakshman Agrawal does not keep good health and, therefore, the applicant looks after his business.
6. It has further been stated in the affidavit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 27-10-2021.
7. The C.B.N. has filed a counter affidavit stating that 31456 capsules of Tramadol, 158 injections and 800 tablets of Clonazepam, 9400 injections of Pentazocine, 1368 bottles of Codeine Syrup, 30 tablets of Diazepam, 216 injections of Buprenorphine and 580 tablets of Chlordiazepoxide were recovered in the search conducted at three premises of M/S G.M. Traders on 26-10-2021 and the applicant was arrested at 08:00 hours on 27-10-2021.
8. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the applicant has admitted that he has resorted to illegal sale and stock of illicit NDPS medicines.
9. A copy of the complaint filed by the C.B.N. has been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit in this Court in which the lists of recovered medicines have been mentioned. All the substances recovered during the raid were medicines manufactured by established manufacturing companies that had been purchased by the applicant and bills in respect of the same were shown to the officers of C.B.N., except Tramadol and Buprenorphine.
10. It has further been stated in the complaint that the statement of several persons were recorded during investigation from which it appeared that the medicines had been purchased by M/s G. M. Traders on proper bills as per the provisions of law in this regard.
11. Although numerous documents have been annexed with the copy of the complaint filed before this Court, a questionnaire issued by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act has been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit, stating that no document has been filed by C.B.N. along with the complaint.
12. Section 2 of the NDPS Act defines narcotic drugs and manufactured drugs as follows: -
(xi) “manufactured drug” means—
All coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and poppy straw concentrate;
Any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug,
but does not include any narcotic
Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana
State of Kerala v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd. (2008) 3 SCC 582
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004) 10 SCC 1
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Nazir Ahmad versus King Emperor
Section 52-A of the Act, as Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Non-compliance with procedural rules does not automatically render actions null and void, and the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The admissibility of recoveries made based on an accused person's disclosures, compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, and the relevance of electronic evidence such as WhatsApp ch....
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; the court must still find reasonab....
Seizure of contraband drugs – Even if it is shown that procedure under Section 52A of NDPS Act is not followed, accused does not automatically become entitled to bail as a matter of right.
Cough syrup with Codeine Phosphate below 2.5% concentration, compounded and established in therapeutic practice, excluded from 'manufactured drug' under NDPS Act notification; bail granted post-chall....
Strict adherence to statutory procedures under the NDPS Act is essential; non-compliance can lead to the grant of bail even in serious drug-related offences.
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.