The court considered the lack of criminal antecedents and the possibility of the offences not being established in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Sheel Nagu, J.

Case Diary is perused.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

3. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 21 and 22 of NDPS Act registered as Crime No. 289/2016 at Police Station Thana Kotwali, District Lashkar.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

5. Applicant apprehends arrest in respect of aforementioned offences where allegation is that the co-accused namely Ateeq Ahmed, Rajendra and Kamal Kishore Sahu were found in possession of 18,000 bottles of Phensedyl which contain the narcotic drug namely Codeine.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statements were recorded of the said co-accused revealing that they are working for the applicant. The applicant holds a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for sale of drugs including that of Phensedyl. It is further submitted by him that Phensedyl is a pharmaceutical drug used as cough syrup which contains permissible amount of narcotic drug Codeine. Thus, it is submitted that under the license issued under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, sale, purchase and transportation of Phensedyl is not prohibited. Moreso, it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that under the notification issued by Govt. of India dated 14.11.1985 and 29.01.1993 vide Annexure P-2, use of Codeine upto a maximum extent of 2.5% for therapeutic purpose is permissible. In this background, it is submitted that since the cough syrup Phensedyl contains concentration of Codeine not more than 2.5%, the said registration of offence by the prosecution was uncalled for.

7. In view of the above and that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant from whom no seizure has been made and the material placed on record does not disclose possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is though inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant but with certain stringent conditions in view of pendency of investigation. Moreso in the given facts and circumstances, the possibility of the offences alleged not being established against the applicant cannot be ruled out.

8. Accordingly, without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application u/S 438 Cr.P.C in the following terms.

9. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.

10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7. Till conclusion of investigation, the applicant will mark his attendance at the concerned Police Station once every week.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

C.c. as per rules.