2021 (6) TMI 1090 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - raid - illegal sale of Coderine phosphate IT - offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 25 of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - This Court has considered following aspects; (a) The role attributed to the present applicant; (b) The applicant has been arraigned into the offence on basis of the statement of co-accused; (c) The bottles of cough syrup has been found from the main accused; (d) The applicant is having valid licence to deal with the medical products. (e) Prima facie, the investigation reveals that the allegation with regard to selling of the cough syrup appears to be related to only 22 bottles. (f) The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required at this stage, as the applicant has co-operated with the investigation. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed - the present application is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 438 of CrPC for offences under NDPS Act - Nexus between applicant and main accused - Allegations of illegal sale of cough syrup - Role of investigating officer and invoices - Validity of applicant's business - Custodial interrogation necessity - Compliance with conditions for anticipatory bail.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case involves the applicant-accused being implicated in the illegal sale of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate. The FIR was lodged after a raid conducted by the police based on information about the main accused's involvement in the illegal sale of medicines. The applicant was alleged to have a nexus with the main accused, but the defense argued that there was no substantial connection between them. The defense highlighted discrepancies in batch numbers of confiscated bottles and those procured by the applicant, suggesting a lack of evidence linking the applicant to the crime.

The defense further contended that the applicant operated a legitimate business and had raised concerns about forged invoices, filing complaints with authorities. The defense emphasized that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the applicant was willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions. The defense also argued that the nature of allegations did not warrant denial of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail application, citing reports of the investigating officer, invoices collected during the investigation, and witness statements. The prosecution asserted a direct involvement of the applicant in the sale of cough syrup to the main accused without proper documentation. The prosecution argued against granting anticipatory bail based on the gravity of the offence and the evidence gathered during the investigation.

After considering arguments from both sides, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court evaluated various aspects, including the role attributed to the applicant, the validity of the applicant's business operations, and the nature of allegations. The Court also emphasized the applicant's cooperation with the investigation and the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation at that stage. The Court referred to legal precedents and imposed specific conditions for the applicant's bail, ensuring compliance and availability during the investigation and trial proceedings.

Additionally, the Court allowed the investigating agency to apply for the applicant's police remand if deemed necessary, with instructions for the applicant's presence before the Magistrate. The Court clarified that observations made in the order should not influence the trial court's proceedings. The judgment concluded by directing the registry to inform relevant authorities about the decision and permitting the applicant's counsel to do the same.