Om Prakash Yadav vs Union Of India

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.110/2017 of Police Station, Abu Road City, District Sirohi for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act' hereinafter). He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that as per the prosecution story, specific intelligence regarding manufacturing of Mephedrone - narcotic substance, was received by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zone Unit on 24.05.2015 and pursuant to that, a raid on factory premises of M/s Rishi Mine Chem Pvt. Ltd., Abu Road was conducted on 25.05.2015 at 09.20 hours and narcotic substance Mephedrone weighing 218.43 kgs. was recovered and the petitioner was arrested on spot. It is argued that while raiding the said premises, compliance of Section 47 of the NDPS Act was not made by the Officers of DRI. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that as per the seizure memo prepared on 25.05.2015, in all 218.43 kgs. white powered substance purported to be Mephedrone were seized under the provisions of NDPS Act. The said narcotic contraband was filled in 9 bags and samples thereof weighing 25 gms. were taken from each bag, however, surprisingly when inventory of goods seized was prepared on 26.05.2015, all 9 bags contained 218.43 kgs. of Mephedrone. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from bare perusal of the said inventory, it is clear that no sample was taken out from 9 bags, otherwise in the said inventory, total weight of Mephedrone would have been reduced.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards the inventory verification report dated 06.08.2016 prepared under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and argued that from the said inventory, it is clear that the weight of the Mephedrone seized on 25.05.2015 i.e. 218.43 kgs. has been increased to 230.082 kgs. at the time of inventory verification done on 06.08.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Yadav has submitted that from the above discrepancies, it is clear that the investigating agency has conducted investigation in most irresponsible manner and taking into consideration the said lacunae in the investigation process, the petitioner, who is in custody from last more than three and a half years, is entitled to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though charges were framed against the petitioner on 16.09.2017 but the trial could not be proceeded further on account of arrest of one of the accused, against whom supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the DRI only in October 2018. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that recently, the petitioner has suffered paralysis attack and for the purpose of better treatment, he is required to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner has no criminal history and he was simply a chemist working in M/s Rishi Mine Chem Pvt. Ltd. and he had no knowledge that the owner and the person, who had ordered for manufacturing the drugs are involved in preparing Mephedrone narcotic substance.

On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that this bail application may be allowed and the petitioner may be released on bail.

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the DRI has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that on receiving a specific intelligence when a team of DRI conducted the raid in the premises of M/s Rishi Mine Chem Pvt. Ltd., Abu Road, the petitioner was present there and in his presence 218.43 kgs. Mephedrone was recovered. Learned counsel for DRI has further submitted that the petitioner gave his confessional statement voluntarily before his arrest, in which he admitted that 218.43 kgs. of Mephedrone had been manufactured by him under the instruction of owners of the factory and co-accused R.D.Patel. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that the confessional statements given by the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are admissible in evidence and taking into consideration this evidence, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

So far as alleged discrepancy in the weight of the seized contraband and the weight mentioned in the inventory before the trial court is concerned, learned counsel for DRI has argued that there is no difference in the weight of the seized contraband because at the time of making inventory under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the weight of the Mephedrone was taken including the containers, in which it was kept, whereas at the time of seizure, the weight of the only narcotic substance, excluding the containers, was taken. Learned counsel for DRI has also submitted that at present, the petitioner is lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur and is getting adequate treatment for his ailment.

On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for DRI has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be rejected.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the charge-sheet as well as the other material available on record and having taken into consideration the limitations in granting bail to the accused under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of commission of offence for which he is charged, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The bail application is, therefore, rejected.