2015 (10) TMI 2190 - HC - Customs

Enlargement on bail in FIR Petitioner contends that since no chargesheet filed till 90 days; he is entitled for bail Revenue contends that petitioner is alleged of recovering tablets COLDSET from pharmaceutical unit, manufacturing the same is an offence Further contended that fake bills were prepared and shown supply to non-existent firms Misuse the licence granted for dealing with controlled substances thus guilty of an offence under Section 9-A of NDPS Act. Held That - Three out of two accusations are unsustainable and cannot invite rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act Permission to manufacture COLDSET tablets given by competent authority and cannot be said as baseless - No meaningful investigation done to show preparation of bills was fake except to statements of some persons who were afraid of their own complicity - Supervisory-cum-Special Investigating Team constituted by this Court to contact counterparts of drug-mafia and obtain a fresh fact-finding report within two weeks Decide the bail of petitioner afresh If two views are allowed, bail to petitioner be granted Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Issues:
Enlargement on bail in FIR, Allegations in FIR, Statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, Chargesheet filing delay, False and fabricated case, Inadmissible confessional statements, NDPS Act provisions, Legal entity verification, Misuse of controlled substances license, Legality of product manufacturing, Fake bills preparation, Genuine supplies investigation, Documentation requirements for industrial units, Prima facie case under Section 9-A NDPS Act, Supervisory-cum-Special Investigating Team direction, Fact-finding report submission, Special Court's bail decision deadline.

Enlargement on bail in FIR:
The petitioner sought bail in a case involving the recovery of ephedrine. The matter was argued on merits despite the bail application being based on statutory provisions.

Allegations in FIR:
The FIR alleged the involvement of the petitioner in a drug trafficking network, with ephedrine recovery from a vehicle leading to further arrests and disclosures. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender but later arrested with a large quantity of tablets from his premises.

Statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC:
The petitioner claimed entitlement to bail due to the delay in filing the chargesheet within 90 days of arrest, citing a similar case for precedent. However, the court primarily focused on the merits of the case.

False and fabricated case, Inadmissible confessional statements:
The defense argued that the case against the petitioner was false and fabricated, with reliance on inadmissible confessional statements and lack of evidence under the NDPS Act.

NDPS Act provisions, Misuse of controlled substances license:
The prosecution contended that the petitioner misused his license by supplying controlled substances to a fake entity, leading to charges under Section 9-A of the NDPS Act.

Legality of product manufacturing, Fake bills preparation:
The court analyzed the legality of manufacturing the product in question based on permissions granted and raised concerns about fake bills and supplies to non-existent entities.

Genuine supplies investigation, Documentation requirements for industrial units:
The investigation highlighted discrepancies in the documentation and verification of the petitioner's pharmaceutical unit, emphasizing the need for thorough documentation for industrial establishments.

Prima facie case under Section 9-A NDPS Act:
The court assessed the prima facie case under Section 9-A of the NDPS Act based on the alleged misuse of the controlled substances license and the authenticity of supplies.

Supervisory-cum-Special Investigating Team direction, Fact-finding report submission:
A directive was issued to a Special Investigating Team to obtain a fresh fact-finding report from Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand regarding the drug trafficking network within two weeks.

Special Court's bail decision deadline:
Upon receiving the fact-finding report, the Special Court was instructed to reconsider the bail decision based on its contents, with a release on bail if two possible views exist, setting a deadline for the decision.

← Previous Next →