2013 (5) TMI 886 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Offences under Sections 8(c), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27A, 28, 29, 30, and 38 of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
3. Seizure and analysis of contraband substances.
4. Previous applications by co-accused.
5. Arguments for and against granting bail.

Summary:

1. Application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
This application was filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with NDPS Special Case No.5 of 2012 for offences under the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 120B of the IPC.

2. Offences under Sections 8(c), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27A, 28, 29, 30, and 38 of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with Section 120B of the IPC:
The prosecution alleged involvement in illegal export/smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The DRI officers seized 37 packets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride from M/s. Anshanu Exports, Ahmedabad. The total value of the seized material was Rs. 37 Crores in the illicit international market.

3. Seizure and analysis of contraband substances:
The Central Excise officers seized 432 kgs of 1(4-methylphenyl) 2-methylaminopropan-1-one and 81 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride from M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Ltd. The DFS Gandhinagar confirmed the substances as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and Ketamine Hydrochloride, covered under the NDPS Act, 1985. The total value of the seized Methamphetamine Hydrochloride was approximately Rs. 432 Crores.

4. Previous applications by co-accused:
Co-accused Abhijit Prabhakar Konduskar's application for retesting the samples was rejected. Another co-accused, Sujal Vijaybhai Patel's bail application was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the non-applicability of exceptions under Section 8.

5. Arguments for and against granting bail:
The applicant contended that the testing methods were flawed and that he had been in jail since 23.12.2011. The learned APP opposed the bail, citing the serious nature and gravity of the offence. The court found no merit in the application, upheld the credibility of the DFS Gandhinagar's report, and emphasized the serious nature of the offence and the punishment prescribed.

Conclusion:
The application for bail was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.