Bombay High Court
Kishor Shinh Bhavsinh Rathod And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 December, 2022
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
1/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.323 OF 2020
Kishor Shinh Bhavsinh Rathod .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1200 OF 2022
Hardipsingh Indersingh Gil .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2483 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION ST NO. 8445 OF 2022
Bharat Shinh @ Mama Katiya .. Applicant
Ranjitsinh Katiya
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2849 OF 2021
Mayur Suresh Sukhdar .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
2/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3646 OF 2021
Jay Mulji Mukhi .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2955 OF 2021
Sagar Suresh Powale .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3449 OF 2021
Jai Mulji Mukhi .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3620 OF 2021
Manoj Tejraj Jain .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4224 OF 2021
Sushilkumar Aasekanna Aadidravid .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
3/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
...
Mr. Anil Lalla a/w Aditya Singh i/b Rahul Arote, Tanvi Mahadik
for the Applicant, in BA No. 323/2020
Mr. Taraq Sayed with Advait Tamhankar, Ashwini Ashari, Lochan
Chandka for Applicant in BA No. 1200/22, BA No. 2849/21, BA
4224/21.
Mr.Vikaram Nanikani a/w Mehul Talesa, Virendra U. Pandey,
Prasanna Naboodiri, Roshil Nichani for applicant in BA 3620/21.
Mr. Vivek Punjabi a/w Ms. Kinnani Mehta for applicant in BA
No. 3646/21.
Mr. Madan Gupta for applicant in BA 2483/21 & BA 2955/21
Mr. Ankur Pahade a/w Sanjay Kokane i/b Shishir Hiray, Spl. P.P
for State
Mrs. A.A. Takalkar, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 6th DECEMBER, 2022
P.C:-
1 Through the 8(eight) Applications, the
applicants/accused charged for the offence punishable u/s.8C, 9A,
22, 23, 24, 25A, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') seek
their release on bail, on the ground that there is no material in the
charge-sheet to indict them and hence, their further custody on
the investigation being complete, is unwarranted. Another
ground which is pressed into service for securing their release is
the long incarceration, the applicants/accused having been
arrested prior to five years or more.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
4/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
The applicants who have filed the present Bail
Applications are charge-sheeted as accused nos.1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11,
13 and 14 in FIR No.II-3056/2016.
2 The prosecution case, which has surfaced in the
charge-sheet, can be briefly summarized as under :-
On 12/4/2021, secret information was received about
two persons arriving in Thane at the mentioned place in one
Maruti Swift Car and one Maruti Desire, carrying Ephedrine for
the purpose of sale within Thane district. On receipt of the same,
a raiding team was arranged and the panchas were called. A pre-
trap panchnama was drawn and as per the information received,
two distinct cars arrived on the spot, and two persons
disembarked the same, and they were found with bags in their
hands. This resulted in apprehending the two accused persons,
being accused nos.1 and 2.
After carrying the necessary procedure as prescribed
under the law, they were found to be in possession of Ephedrine
powder. Accused Sagar gave a memorandum search which lead to
180 grams Ephedrine in his house. Name of one Dhaneshwar
Swami (Accused no.4) surfaced during investigation as the main
conspirator for supply of Ephedrine powder and he came to be
arrested with 5.5 kgs of Ephedrine found on his person.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
5/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
This led the prosecution to a Chemist working in
Avon Life Sciences Ltd, Solapur, the owner of the Company being
accused no.6 - Manoj Jain. The investigation reveal that
Ephedrine was removed from the Company unlawfully with the
permission of it's owner for the purpose of preparation of
psychotropic substance, and for it's sell in International market.
The prosecution allege that search of Avon Life Sciences
Company godown led to 9500 kgs of Ephedrine powder. found
to be illegally stored for the purpose of preparation of
psychotropic substance.
The charge-sheet compile the role attributed to each
of the accused with a broader background narrated as above.
3 The prosecution allege that huge quantity of
Ephedrine was seized in the search and the accused persons acted
as a Syndicate in illegal trafficking of the psychotropic substance,
Ephedrine. Fifteen (15) accused persons came to be arrested,
whereas one Vijaygiri Goswami, Mamta Kulkarni, Dr.Abdullah
came to be arrested and two others are still on the run.
The charge-sheet reflect distinct recoveries from some
of the accused persons and the sequence of events reveal the
distinct dates of their arrest with the main accused Manoj Jain,
being arrested on 27/4/2016, though there is no recovery of
contraband from him in person.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
6/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
The first charge-sheet came to be filed against accused
nos.1 to 4 on 9/6/2016, whereas first supplementary charge-sheet
came to be filed against accused nos.5 to 9 on 23/6/2016. The
second supplementary charge-sheet is filed against accused no.10
on 26/7/2016, whereas third supplementary charge-sheet is filed
against accused nos.11 and 12 on 17/10/2016, fourth and fifth
supplementary charge-sheet are filed on 12/4/2017 and
28/9/2017, respectively against accused nos.13 to 15 and 16 & 17
in succession. Several attempts were made through distinct
applicants for their release, either by filing discharge applications
or by filing applications u/s.439 of Cr.P.C.
With the new ground of long incarceration, the
present applicants also seek their release with the aid of Section
436A of Cr.P.C.
Heard Mr.Anil Lalla, Mr.Vikram Nankani, Sr.
Counsel, Mr.Vivek Panjabi, and Advocate Madan Gupta for the
applicants. Special P.P. Mr.Shishir Hirey represent the case of the
prosecution.
4 The learned senior counsel Mr.Nankani, would
vehemently submit that what is seized in the subject crime is the
controlled substance and therefore, at the most, the accused will
face the charge u/s.9A of the NDPS Act and the charges levelled
against the applicants in the charge-sheet, by no stretch of
imagination get attracted as Section 8(c), deals with certain
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
7/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
prohibitions, which prohibit cultivation of cocoa plant or
cultivation of opium or any cannabis plant. Apart from this, what
is prohibited is production, manufacture, possession, self
consumption, purchase, transport of any Narcotic or psychotropic
substance, except for medical or scientific purpose. It is submitted
that, as far as accused no.6 is concerned, he possess a valid licence
to manufacture, the said substance for medical use, and it is not
the case of the prosecution that he has committed any breach
thereof. It is submitted that the substance which is shown to be
seized is not narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, but it is the
controlled substance listed at Schedule A, B and C of the list of
NDPS Act, and it do not include isomers, esters, ethers or salt and
therefore, the punishment which would be provided on
conviction u/s.25A of the Act, would be maximum imprisonment
upto 10 years and even the bar of Section 37 need not be invoked
while considering grant of bail.
The learned senior counsel would also submit that
the material seized from the Company is D-ephedrine, which is a
waste product or residue from the process of manufacture and it is
not 'Ephedrine' as alleged. The submission is, the waste D-
ephedrine was kept in the factory since 2007-08 to be destroyed
and it was not of any use for application/manufacturing of any
substance, and D-ephedrine is used for splitting ephedrine from
L-ephedrine and is a non-active, non-usable material.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
8/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
5 Apart from the above aspect, what is pressed into
service is the long incarceration of his client, accused no.6 for
more than five years, and it is his submission that the accused are
charged u/s.25A of NDPS Act, which provide a maximum
imprisonment of 10 years, the applicants have undergone
detention for period exceeding or upto one half of the maximum
period of imprisonment and with no progress in trial, their
further detention is unnecessary.
Reliance is placed upon decision of this Court, in case
of two co-accused Rajendra Dimpri and Babasaheb Dhotre, who
came to be released on bail on 24/3/2021, taking a prima facie
view of the matter and also by referring to their long incarceration
by imposing certain conditions which even the applicants are
ready to abide, being imposed upon them.
6 The other counsel representing the respective
applicants also press into service more or less, the same grounds
by inviting my attention to the distinct roles that are attributed to
their clients. Each of the counsel unequivocally refer to the
unconditional release of the applicants on completing the
maximum period, as specified in proviso to Section 436A of the
Cr.P.C and heavily fall back on the order passed by this Court
(Justice A.S. Gadkari in case of two co-accused. It is also
submitted that despite the trial being expedited by order passed
by this Court in Criminal Application No.1297/2016 dated
5/12/2018, directing the trial to be concluded within 9 months,
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
9/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
with more than 100 witnesses being cited, there is no likelihood
of the trial being concluded immediately in the near future, when
the maximum punishment which the accused may invite on
conviction is imprisonment upto 10 years.
7 The learned Spl.P.P Mr.Hirey, however, would focus
on the seriousness of the offence and he would rely upon an
article released by the Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's
Office, Southern District of New York, which is suggestive that
Ephedrine is used for preparation of mephedrone, which is a
narcotic substance as well as Metamphetamine and Methaqulone.
He would submit that as per the said report, the business related
to methaqulone is carried out by international organization
dealing in drug trafficking and in the said article, there is a
mention of Avon Life Sciences Limited, with a specific reference
to Ephedrine, that was illegally produced in the said Company, in
India with the help of the same, there was manufacturing of
Amphetamine in Africa.
The learned Special P.P Mr.Hirey would justify the
invocation of the parameters as contemplated in Section 37 of the
Act, as the offence involved is serious one. Apart from this, he
would submit that the accused persons are convicted for a similar
offence by the Special Court, Gujarat, and hence, the applicants
deserve rejection as the submission of the applicants that there is
no material in the charge-sheet, to sustain their conviction in the
present C.R, is not correct.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
10/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
8 With the able assistance of the respective counsel, I
have perused the charge-sheet placed on record which has cited
155 witnesses and charged the accused persons under Sections
8C, 9A, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
& Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. There is no dispute about
the fact that the substance which the C.R deals with, is ephedrine
and the allegation against the accused persons in the charge-sheet,
is to the effect that accused nos.6, 10 and 13 and the wanted
accused conspired in the meeting held in 2016 for transporting
the ephedrine powder from the Avon Life Science, a Company
belonging to accused no.6 in Solapur, to Kenya for the purpose of
manufacturing methamphetamine, a drug and for earning profit
by selling this product, through the wanted accused Vicky
Goswami and Mr.Abdullah, in rest of the world. As a part of the
conspiracy, the charge-sheet specify that accused no.5 and accused
no.10 removed 150 kgs of ephedrine from the Company, illegally
and through accused no.13, brought the same in Gujarat for
accused no.8, for the purpose of it's further processing. After
processing the same, the psychotropic substance that came into
existence, was transmitted to the wanted accused, Vicky Goswami
in Mumbai and this product was further sent to Kenya and crores
of rupees as a consideration for the same, was received by Manoj
Jain through 'hawala'. The charge-sheet in the background
highlight the seriousness of the drug menace globally and
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
11/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
specifically the role of each of the accused in abetment as well as
criminal conspiracy for committing the said offence.
9 Admittedly, the substance which is found is
ephedrine, which is a controlled substance. Section 9A of the
NDPS Act confer power to control and renew the controlled
substance in the following manner :-
"9A :- Power to control and regulate controlled
substances :
(1) If the Central Government is of the opinion that,
having regard to the use of any controlled substance in
the production or manufacture of any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance, it is necessary or expedient so
to do in the public interest, it may, by order, provide for
regulating or prohibiting the production, manufacture,
supply and distribution thereof and trade and
commerce therein.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power
conferred by sub-section (1), an order made thereunder
may provide for regulating by licences, permits or
otherwise, the production, manufacture, possession,
transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sale,
purchase, consumption, use, storage, distribution,
disposal or acquisition of any controlled substance."
In contravention of the said Section is punishable u/s.25A
which reads thus :-
"25A. Punishment for contravention of orders made
under section 9A - If any person contravenes an order
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
12/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
made under section 9A, he shall be punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may
extend to one lakh rupees: Provided that the court may,
for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine
exceeding one lakh rupees."
10 Section 37 of the NDPS Act which creates an
embargo by imposing two additional conditions, apart from those
contained in the Cr.P.C, while making the offences under the Act
to be cognizable and non-bailable, in no case, get attracted as the
said case do not fall within the ambit of 37(1)(b). As far as the
controlled substance is concerned, there is no specification of the
quantity being small/commercial, and it is a stand-alone provision
as the substance is neither Narcotic drug nor psychotropic
substance and any person indulging in the same in contravention
to the licence, that has been conferred would be liable for
punishment prescribed under Section 25A.
The case of the prosecution is, the manufacturing of
ephedrine being carried out without a licence, but admittedly, the
licence did exist with Avon Science Limited, but the submission
is, it was due for renewal and in any case, the submission on
behalf of Mr.Manoj Jain is to the effect that substance which is
seized, is D-ephedrine which is a waste product or residue
obtained from the process of manufacturing and not actual
ephedrine. There is some conundrum about the C.A. reports as
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
13/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
the submission advanced on behalf of the applicants is that the
report is inconclusive. In any case, the prosecution will have to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance that is seized is
ephedrine. and in any case, it is not something more than
ephedrine.
One thing which is of great significance is, the
absence of any material in the charge-sheet which would establish
the charge that the said substance which was found in the
precints/premises or Avon Science Laboratory, was actually
transported out of the factory and as alleged, to Kenya and was
converted into a psychotropic substance.
When the Special P.P is asked to show any material,
he would fall back upon the report of Justice U.S Attorney's
Office, Southern District of New York, but barring this article,
there is no evidence to that effect compiled in the charge-sheet. It
is too far fledged conclusion to be derived at this stage, that it is
this substance which the prosecution alleged to be ephedrine and
the Accused no.6 contend it to be D-ephedrine, the
residual/waste which was actually transported out and this very
substance was used for manufacturing of a psychotropic substance
in Kenya/South Africa. There is no material compiled in the
charge-sheet, indicting of the above exercise, nor there is any
proof of the amount being received by accused persons through
Hawala as consideration towards the same.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
14/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
In any case, these are my prima facie observations
based upon the aspect of the charge-sheet and should not be
construed as conclusive comments upon the prosecution case.
11 In case of accused no.3 and 9 in the charge-sheet, the
whole prosecution case was considered, threadbare in the order
dated 25/3/2021, when they sought their release on bail with the
following submissions being advanced :-
"5 Mr.Mundargi, learned counsel appearing
for the applicant Babasaheb Dhotre submitted that, in
the house search of Mr.Dhotre, no contraband was
found. He submitted that, M/s.Avon Organics Ltd i.e.
the company owned by Mr.Manoj Jain (A-6) was
granted permission by the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, Central Drugs Standard Control
Organization, Government of India for manufacturing
and packing, Psuedoephedrine HCI (BP/USP/EP) and
Ephedrine HCI (BP/EP) by its Certificate dated
31/7/2013 and the said permission was valid till 2 nd
July 2016. Therefore manufacture of Ephedrine by Mr.
Manoj Jain (A-6) in his company i.e. Avon Life
Sciences Limited cannot be termed as an illegal act per
se. He submitted that, various statements of witnesses
who are mainly the employees of Avon Life Sciences
Company have ascribed role to applicant Babasaheb
Dhotre as, aiding in transporting the Ephedrine
powder under the guidance of Mr.Dimpri and nothing
more. He submitted that, the applicant Babasaheb
Dhotre bonafide transported the said goods and has
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
15/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
raised a bill for his transportation charges with the
Avon Company which is still outstanding. He
submitted that, it can at the most be alleged against the
applicant Babasaheb Dhotre that, he provided vehicle
and driver for transporting the said Ephedrine from
Avon Life Science Company to other places under the
directions of co-accused. He submitted that, at the
most an offence under Section 25-A read with Section
9-A of the NDPS Act, can be alleged against the
applicant Babasaheb Dhotre. He submitted that
Section 25-A prescribes maximum rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years for an offence punishable
under Section 25-A and the applicant Babasaheb
Dhotre as of today has approximately undergone five
years in incarceration as an under trial prisoner. He
therefore, prayed that, the applicant Babasaheb Dhotre
may be released on bail".
While considering the case of Rajendra Dimpri, a
Manager of Avon Life Science, whose submission was specifically
recorded in para 6 of the order that there was a licence to
manufacture ephedrine granted by the concerned authority of
Government of India and it was his duty to supervise
manufacturing of ephedrine, a similar submission, of the Special
P.P is found to be recorded in para 7 to the following effect :-
"7. He submitted that, from the Ephedrine powder
Methamphetamine was to be manufactured by the
accused persons. He submitted that, as per the
prosecution case, from the Ephedrine powder supplied
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
16/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
by the applicants, co-accused Felix Osita (A-12) and
Okaya Chinnasa (A-15) manufactured
Methamphetamine. He submitted that, apart from the
recovery at the instance of applicant Rajendra Dimpri,
the prosecuting agency has seized approximately 18 tons
of Ephedrine which includes the quantity transported to
United States by other accused persons. He submitted
that, at the instance of applicant Rajendra dimpri,
applicant Babasaheb Dhotre transported Ephedrine
powder from Avon Company and delivered it to co-
accused Sushirkumar Asekannan Adidraived (A-11) and
Hardeepsing Gill (A-7). He submitted that, statement of
co-accused Jay Mulji Mukhi (A-10) has been recorded by
the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. which unfolds the entire conspiracy hatched by
the accused persons herein. He therefore prayed that, the
present applications may be dismissed"
12 After dealing with the said submission and on perusal
of the material in the charge-sheet, the learned Single Judge, has
recorded as under :-
"10 Serial No.4 of Schedule-A of The Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of
Controlled Substances) Order, 2013 mentions
'Ephedrine and its salts'. Section 25-A of NDPS Act
provides that, if any person contravenes an order made
under section 9-A, he shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years
and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one
lakh rupees. It is to be noted here that, however, no
minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 25-A of
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
17/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
NDPS Act.
It is held by this Court in a catena of decisions
that, the controlled substance is neither a narcotic drug
nor a psychotropic substance and therefore, no
commercial quantity or otherwise is provided for the
controlled substance. It is also held that, as far as
controlled substance is concerned, there is no
categorization of small or commercial quantity. It is
further held in the case of Rafael Palafox Garcia Vs.
The Union of India & Anr (Criminal Application
No.2015/2008) dated 25th September 2008, that a
controlled substance is not necessary to be used only to
make narcotic or psychotropic substance but it is a
versatile substance which can be used in manufacturing
of various things including innocuous medicines by the
pharmaceutical industry.
It further prima facie appears from the material
on record that, there is no connecting link that, that
Metamphetamine found in possession of co-accused
Felix Osita (A-12) was manufactured from the
Ephedrine removed by the applicant Rajendra Dimpri
from the factory premises of Avon Life Sciences
Company, Solapur. There is no material on record to
show that, the Ephedrine which was allegedly removed
from the factory premises by the applicant Rajendra
Dimpri was in fact converted into Metamphetaminc
and the same was found in the possession of co-accused
Felix Osita and Okaya Chinnasa is an independent
recovery of the said contraband from them."
Apart from this, the Court recorded that the
applicants before it, are in custody for more than five years and
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
18/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
the prosecution has not taken steps to frame the charge, and
therefore, was pleased to release them on bail.
16 My attention is also invited to an important fact that,
as early as on 5/12/2018, when Accused no.6 Manoj Jain moved
this Court, the Sessions Judge was directed to expedite the trial of
the applicant and directed it to be concluded within nine months.
The said order came to be passed in the wake of the fact that an
application was moved by Mr.Manoj Jain, questioning the report
of Chemical Analysis and requesting for carrying out Specific
Optical Rotation Test (SORT) in order to ascertain the correct
component of the substance that was seized, as the submission
advanced on behalf of accused no.6, even at that time, was that
the substance that is seized, is d-ephedrine, which is even not a
controlled substance. The Court, however, recorded that the
accused will get an opportunity to adduce his own evidence at the
time of trial and this exercise will not be carried at this stage.
17 The case of the applicants is to the effect that there
was no manufacturing of Ephedrine or its transportation, as
alleged, and Manoj Jain, accused no.6, the owner of Avon Life
Sciences, is specific that FDA licence and Central Excise
Registration was issued initially in Avon Organics Limited which
was at that time, controlled by one Agrawal. According to him,
since 2005, the waste material D-ephedrine, having no
commercial value, received back after job work was lying in the
godown of Avon Organics which is not used in manufacturing of
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
19/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
Narcotics/psychotropic substance nor it is the controlled
substance - Ephedrine.
Manoj Jain, accused no.6 purchased 24% shares of
Avon Organics Limited and raised to 58% in 2009. Avon
Organics Limited was altered to Avon Life Science Limited and
even the registrations were amended as per case of accused no.6
and in this, he was one of the Director. My attention is invited to
a document of 28/1/2016 which is a certificate of Good
Manufacturing Practices issued by the Food and Drug
Administration, Maharashtra State and a Unique Registration
Certificate (URN) issued under the Narcotic Drug and
Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances)
Order 2016 by NCB. The submission advanced is M/s.AvonLife
Science was holding all requisite permissions for manufacture of
controlled substance such as Pseudoephedrine hydrochloride,
Ephedrine and Ephedrine Hydrochloride. This of course, need to
be proved during the course of trial as the prosecution will also
have to discharge it's burden to prove the charges in the charge-
sheet.
13 It is not in dispute that the arrest of all the applicants
is effected between April to June 2016, and they have undergone
more than six years of Imprisonment on date, and they are
definitely entitled for the advantage of Section 436A which has
been recognized by the Apex Court in the decision of Satender
Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, as a substantial
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022
20/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
provision facilitating liberty, being core intendment of Act 21 of
the Constitution.
14 At present, in the wake of the material in the charge-
sheet, they can prima facie be held guilty of Section 9A and
Section 25A which would, in any case, warrant a maximum
penalty of 10 years imprisonment and having undergone six years
of it, pending the trial, the benefit of the statutory provision
necessarily must go to them, the trial do not appear to be in
foresight as 150 witnesses are cited by the prosecution.
In the aforesaid circumstances, since it is not the case
of the prosecution that the applicants are at flight risk or they will
not make themselves available for trial, I deem it fit to release
them on bail. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(a) The Applicant no.1 Kishor Shinh Bhavsinh Rathod in BA 323/2020, applicant Hardipsingh Indersingh Gil in BA No.1200/2022, applicant Bharat Sinh @ Mama Katiya in BA No.2483/2021, applicant Mayur Suresh Sukhdar in BA 2849/2021, applicant Jay Mulji Mukhi in BA No.3646/2021, applicant Sagar Suresh Powale in BA no.2955/2021, applicant Jai Mulji Mukhi in BA No.3449/2021, applicant Sushilkumar Aasekanna Aadidravid in BA Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022 21/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc No.4224/2021 in connection with FIR No.II- 3056/2016 registered with Vartak Nagar Police Station shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.50,000/- each with one or more sureties of the like amount.
Applicant Manoj Tejraj Jain in BA No.3620/2021, in connection with FIR No.II- 3056/2016 registered with Vartak Nagar Police Station shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or more sureties of the like amount.
(b) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The Applicant should not tamper with evidence.
(c) The Applicants shall mark their attendance to the concerned Police Station on first Thursday of every trimester between 11.00 am to 2.00 p.m.
(d) On being released on bail, the applicants shall furnish their contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, if there is any change.
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/12/2022 22/22 BA 323-20 and ors .doc
(e) On their release within 7 days, the applicants shall surrender their passport to the Investigating Officer. The applicants shall not travel without permission of the concerned Magistrate.
(f) The Applicants shall attend the trial on regular basis.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2023 12:19:25 :::