Gujarat High Court
Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah vs State Of Gujarat & on 5 July, 2017
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 11314 of 2017
==========================================================
BHAVESH JAYANTILAL SHAH....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NM KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. L.R. PUJARI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 05/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has been charged with the offences punishable under sections 21, 22, 23, 29(2), 38 read with section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ("the Act" for short) and Rules 53A, 63, 66 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules ("the Rule" for short).
2. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 on 2.2.2017 alleging the offences punishable under the above mentioned provisions by several persons.
3. The gist of the complaint is that initially upon receipt of information Anil Luhar and his associates and Jahid Sheikh's premises were raided as also their personal search was made at B-41, Gokul Society, Near Octroi Naka, Vasna, Page 1 of 18 HC-NIC Page 1 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER Vadodara and 310, Race Course Tower, Race Course Road, Vadodara. It has been alleged that from their properties contraband tablets drugs were seized and it was learnt by the complainant from said Anil Luhar and Jahid Sheikh that tablet oxycodone was procured by them from one of the accused Murugan Nadar who worked with K.C. Pharma and Euphoria Health Care Private Limited. The complainant also claims to have learnt from Anil Luhar that some of the stocks of contraband was possessed at C-76, Sahyog Society, Gorwa, Vadodara and those premises were also raided and contraband drugs were seized therefrom. Necessary procedure was followed and statements of Anil Luhar and Jahid Sheikh were recorded under section 67 of the Act wherein, as stated in the complaint, they made the following revelations:
"Thereafter, Anil Luhar was summoned under section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly his statement was recorded on 10.8.2016. He stated that he was resident of Vadodara, Gujarat and completed his Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Third year and started Gaytech Engineer Pvt. Ltd. at 310, Race Course Tower, Race Course Road, Vadodara, with his brother. He got very loss in the company and therefore left the Gaytech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and took drug licence in the name of Dolphin Pharmaceuticals Inc, 310 Race Course Tower, Race Course Road, Vadodara in Jul-Aug 2015. He kept one employee named Jahid Shaikh to look after Dolphin Pharma. He dealt in some psychotropic substance like Alprazolam, Zolpidem etc. He further stated that they got order of psychotropic substances online and after getting order they searched the material online and Page 2 of 18 HC-NIC Page 2 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER ordered it from domestic market and packed it themselves and sent via courier or EMS by doing mis- diclaration. He further stated that they used to send all psychotropic substance without prescriptions and admitted his involvement in trafficking of psychotropic substance voluntarily."
"Thereafter, Jahid Shaikh was summoned under section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and accordingly his statement was recorded on 10.8.2016. He stated that he joined Dolphin Pharmaceuticals as manager and handle all work of Dolphin Pharma. He further stated that he came in contact with a person named Salman Khan based at Mumbai and get the contact number of Murugan Nadar of K C Pharma from him. He further stated that he got the order of psychotropic substance from online site and booked the order through courier or EMS post service. He further stated that he managed some order of psychotropic substances through K C Pharma also. They used to send all psychotropic substance without prescriptions and accepted his involvement in trafficking of psychotropic substance voluntarily."
3.1 Thereafter, the complainant proceeded to raid K C Pharma as he had learnt that oxycodone was procured by the aforementioned accused persons from Murugan Nadar, an employee of K C Pharma and Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Both these Companies were raided and it is stated that contraband drugs were seized therefrom. It is stated that accused Murugan Nadar, Manager of K C Pharma, made the following revelations in his statement recorded under section 67 of the Act.
Page 3 of 18
HC-NIC Page 3 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER
"Thereafter, Murugan Nadar, Manager of KC Pharma was summoned under section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly his statement was recorded on 12.8.2016. He stated that his native place in Tamilnadu and moved to Mumbai in 1989. He worked in different Pharma companies and joined Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in July, 2013. He joined Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. as manager of purchase and sales department and he was transferred to K C Pharma as look after same responsibilities from last six month. He further stated that K C Pharma and Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. are joint companies. He dealth in all type of medicines including psychotropic substance. He further stated that they got order of psychotropic substances online and domestic customers and after getting order they procured the material from different customers and send the parcels via courier or EMS by doing mis-diclaration. He admitted his involvement in trafficking of psychotropic substance voluntarily." 3.2 Statement of one of the accused Krishna Kumar Chodhary, who is stated to be proprietor of K C Pharma was also recorded under section 67 of the Act and he is said to have made the following revelations:
"Thereafter, Krishna Kumar Chodhary, Proprietor of K C Pharma was summoned under section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and accordingly his statement was recorded on 12.8.2016. He stated that he moved to Mumbai in 2007 with an assurance to get a job by Bhavesh Shah. Initially he worked as delivery boy in Euphoria Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and later he was promoted to post of director in same companies.
Page 4 of 18
HC-NIC Page 4 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER
Thereafter, Bhavesh Shah decided to open K C Pharma in September, 2015 and Krishna Chodhary was made Proprietor of this companies. K C Pharma used to send parcels of psychotropic substances illegally out of India via courier of post. He admitted his involvement in trafficking of psychotropic substance voluntarily."
3.3 The complainant claims to have learnt from the statements of Murugan Nadar and Krishna Kumar Chodhary, that K C Pharma and Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. are owned by Mr. Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah, petitioner herein. His statement was also recorded wherein he is said to have made the following revelations:
"The complainant further submits that, the accused stated in their statement that K C Pharma and Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. were owned by Mr. Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah, therefore, Mr. Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah was summoned u/s. 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 and his voluntary statement was recorded on 23.8.2016. In his statement he inter alia confirmed that he opened Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in 2003. He further stated that Murugan Nadar and Krishna Chodhary worked for him. He formed K C Pharma in 2015 and made Krishna Chodhary as proprietor of K C Pharma. He accepted that he had knowledge of act of Krishna Chodhary and all liabilities of K C Pharma lies with him.
3.4 All the above persons were arraigned as accused in the present case. No contrabands were found from their person. They were eventually arrested. Thereafter, the complainant proceeded to record statements of certain suppliers of drugs being Companies or their representatives Page 5 of 18 HC-NIC Page 5 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER and it is his case that no incriminating material was found from them.
3.5 The complainant also recorded the statement of a Company named Puspa Consultancy Service based at Mumbai who made the following revelations:
"The complainant further submits that during course of investigation it is found that a company named Puspa Consultancy Service based at Mumbai was involved in sending parcels abroad by post office and therefore Virendra Kumar Verma, owner of Puspa Consultancy Service was summoned u/s. 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 and his voluntary statement was recorded on 7.10.2016. In his statement he stated that he runs a postal franchises company in the name of Puspa Consultancy Service based at Mumbai. He got the commission on each parcel from Indian Post Office booked by someone through him. He further stated that he used to book parcel for K C Pharma and Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. He did not know about the content of parcels. He produced the details of parcel booked by K C Pharma and Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. for the period from November 2015 to September, 2016."
(emphasis supplied) 3.6 It is stated that primary test report indicated that the contraband recovered were narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. However, the report with regard to two samples being G2 and L2 referred to in panchnama dated 9.8.2016 and 11-12.8.2016 is awaited.
3.7 After stating that above referred premises were raided and contrabands were recovered from the premises so Page 6 of 18 HC-NIC Page 6 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER raided and that K C Pharma and Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. are owned by the petitioner herein and after stating that the drugs tested positive to be narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and after referring to some of the provisions of law, the complainant has made the following averments in paragraph No. 64 and 67 thus:
"p. 64. That by indulging in such activity the persons at sr. No. 1 to 5 and the companies at sr. No. 6, 7 & 8 have contravened the section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, punishable under section 21, 22, 23, section 29(2) and section 38 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and rule 53A, rule 63 and rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, 1985."
"p. 67 - The complainant submits that the accused No. 1 to 5 and companies at sr. No. 6, 7 & 8 along with other known and unknown persons entered in a criminal conspiracy to supply the medicines including the medicines falling under the category of psychotropic substances to the destination abroad in contravention to the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) and the NDPS Rules, 1985, and they may please be dealt with according to law."
4. After the complaint was lodged, accused Jahid Hussain Iqbal Hussain Sheikh (accused No. 2) moved this court for bail which was granted on 23.5.2017. Similarly, Krishnakumar Chodhary (accused No. 3), Anil Luhar (accused No. 1), Murugan Dhamodaran Nadar (accused No. 4) applied for and were enlarged on bail by Special Judge, NDPS, Vadodara in separate bail applications. However, the petitioner's application has been rejected and therefore he is before this court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Page 7 of 18 HC-NIC Page 7 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER there was no evidence except the statement of above referred co-accused Anil Luhar, Jahid Sheikh and Murugan Nadar to an effect that K C Pharma and Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. were owned by the petitioner. The learned counsel also contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he possesses valid licences, copies of which are produced on record. The licenses permit the petitioner's company to deal with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and that the petitioner was doing legal business under the licence. It is argued that from Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. only 35 grams of oxycodone has allegedly been recovered and that no quantitative test to find out exact quantity contents of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substance therein was performed. He submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been wrongly roped in, in the offence in question.
6. Per contra, the respondents would contend that a serious case under the above provisions of law has been made out against the petitioner and other accused persons. Drawing the attention of this court to Rule 63 of the Rules, it was contended that sale of the contrabands through postal service is prohibited. It was argued that the petitioner was found to be dealing with contrabands in breach of the above provisions on large scale by running fictitious company in the name of K C Pharma which is the company owned by the petitioner and Murugan Nadr is the Manager of the said company and Krishnakumar Chodhary was earlier employed as delivery boy and he was impersonated as proprietor of K C Pharma. It was argued that sale proceeds of K C Pharma have been disbursed to Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and common relation between two companies thus has been established. It was contended that in the statement made under section 67 of the Act, all the Page 8 of 18 HC-NIC Page 8 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER above named accused have confessed their guilt and that this court may not exercise the discretion in their favour. Relying on section 37 of the Act, it was arguned that in absence of the petitioner's making out a case that he is innocent, he is not entitled to bail.
7. This court has considered the rival contentions, complaint, affidavit filed by the respondent in the trial court while opposing the petitioner's bail application and other relevant documents on record as well as those furnished by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7.1 The above referred facts would indicate that the petitioner has been charged with the offences under sections 21, 22, 23, 29(2), 38 read with section 8(c) of the Act and above referred Rules. For ready reference the said provisions are referred to herein:-
"[21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.-Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells,purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punishable,
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;Page 9 of 18
HC-NIC Page 9 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
22. Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances. Whoever , in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any psychotropic substance shall be punishable,
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
23. Punishment for illegal import in to India, export from India or transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.-Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or Page 10 of 18 HC-NIC Page 10 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER condition of licence or permit granted or certificate or authorization issued thereunder, imports into India or exports from India or tranships any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be punishable,-
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment- for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine; which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.]
29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.-
(1) xxxxxxx (2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which
(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or
(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if Page 11 of 18 HC-NIC Page 11 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER committed within India.
38. Offences by companies.-(1) Where an offence under Chapter IV has been committed by a company, every person, who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under Chapter IV has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary of other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation- For the purposes of this section,-
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
8. Prohibition of certain operations. -
(a) xxxxxx
(b) xxxxxx
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase,
transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, Page 12 of 18 HC-NIC Page 12 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorization also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorization:
Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter-State and export inter-State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
l[Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the export of poppy straw for decorative purposes.]"
7.2 Rule 53A of the Rules has also been invoked which however has been omitted from the statute book by Notification GSR 224(E) dated 25.3.2015 with effect from the said date. Without any further deliberation on this aspect, it is got to be notified that to that extent the complaint defecting the offence subsequent to the date of omission of the Rule suffers from non-application of mind.
7.3 Rules 63 and 66 of the Rules have also been relied upon which read as under:
"63. Prohibition of import and export of consignments through a post office box, etc:-The import or export of consignments of any narcotic drug or Page 13 of 18 HC-NIC Page 13 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER psychotropic substance through a post office box or through a bank is prohibited.
66. Possession, etc., of psychotropic substances:-
(1) No person shall possess any psychotropic substance for any of the purposes covered by the 1945 Rules, unless he is lawfully authorised to possess such substance for any of the said purposes under these Rules.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), any research institution or a hospital or dispensary maintained or supported by Government or local body or by charity or voluntary subscription, which is not authorised to possess any psychotropic substance under the 1945 Rules, or any person who is not so authorised under the 1945 Rules, may possess a reasonable quantity of such substance as may be necessary for their genuine scientific requirements or genuine medical requirements, or both for such period as is deemed necessary by the said research institution or, as the case may be, the said hospital or dispensary or person:
Provided that where such psychotropic substance is in possession of an individual for his personal medical use the quantity thereof shall not exceed one hundred dosage units at a time.
(3) The research institution, hospital and dispensary referred to in sub-rule (2) shall maintain proper accounts and records in relation to the purchase and consumption of the psychotropic substance in their possession."
7.4 As is evident from sections 21 and 22 of the Act, it provides for a punishment for contravention respectively in relation to manufactured drugs and psychotropic substances. Under the said provision if the licence is possessed, it must be Page 14 of 18 HC-NIC Page 14 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER shown that the terms and conditions of the licence/permit have been violated. Similarly, section 26 of the Act contemplates, inter alia, punishment for breach of conditions of licence/permit or certificate or authorization etc. in relation to "imports into or exports from India" the contraband material. 7.5 It cannot be disputed that under the licence/permit or certificate or authorization it would be lawful to deal with the contrabands prohibited under the Act and once that is so, the case can be pitched for violation of the said permit/authorization only. From the above quoted revelations made by several accused persons including the petitioner, the respondents clearly learnt that the persons in-charge of the companies were dealing with the pharmaceutical drugs and the orders were procured by the said companies online and were being dispatched via courier or EMS. Respondent No. 2 also learnt from the petitioner that he was holding lawful licence for dealing with the products in the company Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the petitioner was immunized from the above referred provisions of sections 21 and 22 of the Act and other relevant provisions which permit dealing with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances with licence or authorization, copies of such licences are placed by the petitioner on record. It appears that without verifying the licence, respondent No. 2 in its complaint proceeded to invoke sections 21 and 22 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner is possessing Certificate of Importer-Exporter Code issued by Government of India, Ministry of Commerce on 27.11.2003 and thus export, if any, made by the petitioner was not in contravention of the provisions of the Act. As noticed hereinabove, the complainant after recovering the drugs/psychotropic substances did not Page 15 of 18 HC-NIC Page 15 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER specify as to in what manner the provisions of the Act/Rules have been violated. Only substantive averment for bringing home the charge against the petitioner are those contained in paragraphs 53, 63, 64 and 67. In paragraph 53, respondent No. 2 has referred to Rule 63 of the Rules which prohibits export of drugs/psychotropic substances through post office box or through a bank. While no corresponding provision under the Act imposing such prohibition is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents; it is required to be noted that even according to respondent No. 2 no evidence showing that contents in the parcel posted with Puspa Consultancy Service contained contrabands could be found. Except the statement of Puspa Consultancy Services and certain entries taken from the books of accounts of the petitioner, no other material is sought to be relied upon to bring home the charge as regards breach of Rule 63 of the Rules. In the opinion of this court, in absence of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the case in that regard cannot be rested on a mere suspicion. It is required to be noted that it is not the case of the respondents that statement of recipient of the contraband material was ever recorded or any material evidencing the receipt of the contraband material through post by the importer beyond Indian territory has been placed on record. Confessional statement of the petitioner is sought to be relied upon. However, even in such statement no such details are found. Moreover, except that Rule 63 prohibits the export by post office box, it does not spell out that its breach would be an offence.
7.6 Section 37 of the Act is sought to be pressed into service for denial of the bail to the petitioner. It is, however, rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Page 16 of 18 HC-NIC Page 16 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER absence of the charge against the petitioner under section 19 or 24 or 27A of the Act, the said provision cannot be invoked. There is no charge under the above referred provisions against the petitioner and therefore, it is misconceived for the learned counsel for the respondent to rely upon section 37 of the Act. 7.7 That apart, it is not in dispute that no quantitative test was carried out on the contraband to ascertain the total quantity of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances. 7.8 This court has, by an order dated 23.5.2017 enlarged Jahid Hussain Iqbal Hussain Sheikh (accused No. 2) on bail. Said Jahid Sheikh is stated to be Manager of Dolphin Pharmaceuticals and thus was in-charge of the affairs of the company and in that capacity he was allegedly found to be contravening the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
8. In light of the foregoing discussion, in the opinion of this court, the petitioner has successfully made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with the offence registered vide F.No. NCB/AZU/CR 07/2016 (NDPS case No. 01 of 2017) on his furnishing bail bond and surety each in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) to the satisfaction of the trial court and also on the following terms and conditions that the petitioner shall:
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
(c) surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
(d) not leave the territory of India without prior
Page 17 of 18
HC-NIC Page 17 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11314/2017 ORDER
permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
(e) mark presence in the concerned police station once in a calendar month.
(f) furnish the present address of residence along with the proof to the Investigating Officer concerned and also to the trial court at the time of execution of the bond and shall indicate change of residential address if any to the trial court.
9 The authorities will release the petitioner only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.
10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case.
11. It will be open for the concerned court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.
12. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of primary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this court while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. "
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) (pkn) Page 18 of 18 HC-NIC Page 18 of 18 Created On Wed Aug 16 21:06:10 IST 2017