2021 (2) TMI 150 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - admissibility of the statement recorded under Section 67 of GST Act - offence punishable under Sections 22, 23, 25, 25A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - In the present case also, statement of the applicant is recorded. It is stated that his statement was under duress and without his consent. Annexure-D shows that he has reiterated his statement saying that it was not given voluntarily by him and he is forced to give the same before the Officer of the Department of Revenue Intelligence under duress and without free will. Further as admitted by Mr. Prashant Kumar in his affidavit in reply Page 43 of the petition that M/s. Ardor Drugs Private Limited got one time permission for manufacture and export of Tramadol Hydrochloride 225 Mg tablets to Cameroon (through M/s. Sanctuary Pharmaceuticals) for only 101000 Tramadol 225 mg tablets. However, applicant in the guise of above mentioned licence, manufactured more than permissible quantity of Tramadol 225 mg tablets and got it clandestinely removed from M/s. Ardor Drugs Private Limited. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court feels that this is a fit case whether the applicant is entitled to bail because there is a possibility that he may not be convicted under the provisions as charged by the respondent no.2 after recording evidence of eye witnesses. This Court is satisfied having regard to the material available on record and there are sufficient grounds that if the applicant may not be convicted - Further, the applicant has no antecedent and trail would take long time. He is not likely to run away from the justice if he is released on bail, as he is a Director of different companies situated at Songadh District Tapi. If the probabilities are there, the applicant may not be convicted, court can grant bail subject to further conditions being satisfied that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail - After filing of the the chargesheet during the pendency of this application, no further evidence is placed on record involving the present applicant in the offence, and therefore, this court feels that some stringent conditions will have to be imposed upon the applicant by accepting the prayer. The present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicant's innocence and prima facie case.
2. Allegations of coercion and duress in obtaining statements.
3. Legality of manufacturing and exporting Tramadol.
4. Admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
5. Compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicant's Innocence and Prima Facie Case:
The applicant claimed innocence, asserting no involvement in the alleged offenses under the NDPS Act. The applicant emphasized his role as a director of M/s. Ardor Drugs Pvt. Ltd. since 2019 and proprietor of M/s. Orlando Healthcare since 2012, with no prior violations of the NDPS Act. The applicant argued that the complaint did not reveal any incriminating role other than being a director. He also questioned the reliability of the evidence, suggesting it was inconsistent and not cogent.

2. Allegations of Coercion and Duress in Obtaining Statements:
The applicant contended that his statements were obtained under coercion and duress, without his free will. He claimed the statements were pre-drafted, and he was forced to sign them. The applicant retracted his statements, asserting they were involuntary and taken under threat, which is prohibited by law.

3. Legality of Manufacturing and Exporting Tramadol:
The applicant argued that M/s. Ardor Drugs Pvt. Ltd. had a valid license to manufacture and export Tramadol. The prosecution, however, alleged that the applicant exceeded the permissible limit of 101,000 tablets of Tramadol 225 mg and exported them illegally. The court noted that while the company had a license, the prosecution's claim of manufacturing excess tablets and exporting them without requisite permission needed further examination.

4. Admissibility of Statements Under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:
The prosecution argued that the applicant's statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were admissible as they were made voluntarily. However, the applicant disputed this, citing coercion. The court referred to judgments where the admissibility of such statements was questioned, noting that the issue was referred to a larger bench for reconsideration. The court acknowledged that if the statements were made under duress, they could be disregarded.

5. Compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act for Granting Bail:
The court examined the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record, and the trial would take a long time. The court was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to believe the applicant might not be convicted, and stringent conditions could be imposed to ensure compliance.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the bail application, ordering the applicant's release on a bail bond of ?5,00,000 with two sureties, subject to several conditions, including not leaving Gujarat without permission, surrendering his passport, and not acting in a manner injurious to the prosecution. The court emphasized that the trial court should not be influenced by the observations made during the bail proceedings.