WASEEM AKRAM vs STATE

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under

Sections 8(c), 22, 23, 28, 29 and 30 of NDPS Act, registered in NCB.F.No.48/1/6/2017BZU.

The prosecution case in brief that based on a secret and reliable information received on 18.4.2017 at about 22.00 hours a team of NCB

Officers was constituted and under the directions of the Superintendent NCB and a team headed by a Intelligence Officer with all necessary equipments reached Nandagokula layout, Saraipalya and they introduced themselves as Officers from the NCB and approached 2 persons and requested them to be the witness to the proceedings to which it is alleged, they agreed. The further allegation that petitioner herein was running an internet pharmacy business along with accused No.3 his brother along with the help of the accused No.2 in the guise of a call centre which as per the prosecution was operating only after 10.30 p.m. in the night at the address mentioned in the complaint and they were into smuggling of certain psychotropic substances and were making huge profits. It is the further case of the prosecution that the officers along with the witnesses with all necessary equipments reached the spot at about 22.45 hours and they noticed the 2 persons were working inside the suspected call centre operating illegally from the 3rd floor of the said address. They knocked the door of the said premises and a persons opened the door and after disclosing their identify and also after introducing the witnesses, sought to know the details with regard to the business being run from the 2 persons

i.e., accused No.2 and accused No.3, who were alleged to be present in the said premises at the time of the raid. It is also further case of the prosecution that a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served on the said 2 persons and a personal search was conducted and in the personal search no drugs were found and it was only after the personal search that the officers asked the two persons with regard to the identity of the owners of the call centre and it is alleged that the two persons informed them that the petitioner, Waseem Akram is the owner. It is further submitted that when they called, the petitioner did not pick up the phone call but after a short period of time he had switched off his cell phone and was not reachable. Then mahazar was conducted in the presence of A2 and A3 so also in the presence of the independent witnesses and during the search operation it is found that the call centre consisted of a few computer systems and some CPUs which were kept inside the room and upon further search two big carton boxes were found in the corner of the room and upon opening of the first box it is alleged that it contained tablet strips which are detailed in the remand application at para 3. The further case of the prosecution that the said listed tablets are strictly regulated in

India and USA but are banned in certain other countries. It is further contended that the accused No.2 and petitioner used to contact customers in

USA through internet call and upon instructions of accused No.1, the petitioner used to send the tablets by means of speed post to their customers in U.S.A. It is the further case of the prosecution that the second box contained many more tablet strips and on superficial observation, it was noticed that the tables as detailed in para 5 of remand application it was found and these tablets were segregated and weighed and further sealed as per the provisions of the Act. It is further alleged by the prosecution that upon search various documents with regard to illicit business were found and that the said documents along with the CPUs were seized by the prosecution. The petitioner was not traced and was missing.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that A2, A3 and A4 have already considered for bail. Learned counsel also made the

submission that totally 9 articles were sent to FSL for examination and report. Out of that in 4 articles it is observed that - there is no purity of the articles sent. Learned counsel drawing the attention of this Court to the panchanama at page 94 of the file and to the signature portion below the

contents, made the submission that this itself goes to show that panchanama is created for the purpose of prosecution case and it will not exhibit what has happened. The Counsel further made the submission that investigation is completed and chargesheet also filed. Hence he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to bail.

Per contra, learned special public prosecutor opposed the petition contending that looking to the prosecution materials it is the petitioner who

was running the pharmaceutical business without possessing the valid licence or permit from the competent authority. He submitted that grant of bail to A2, A3 and A4 are concerned, the petitioner cannot have the ground of parity for seeking his release of bail. It is his submission that after

A2, A3 and A4 were arrested and through them name of the present petitioner came to be known to the police officers, they wanted to contact the present petitioner, but he did not pick the phone and subsequently he switched off the mobile phone. He also submitted that so far as the other

5 articles, which were sent for FSL examination, are concerned, there is prima facie material, even it is his submission that 2nd report is awaited.

Hence, in view of the materials placed by the prosecution there is prima facie case as against the petitioner and he is not entitled for bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.

The main allegation of the prosecution as against the present petitioner is that he was doing pharmaceutical business without possessing valid

licence and the permit from the competent authority. Even there are allegation that he was not picking up the phone and not ready to talk with the police officers, when they conducted raid. Therefore, this conduct on the part of the petitioner clearly goes to show that he is not ready to co-

operate with the investigating agency to collect the information with regard to the offences are concerned. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that so far as the four items there is no purity as per the report by the FSL, but regarding five items are concerned there is prima facie material apart from that the second report is also awaited from Delhi. When such serious allegations are made against the

petitioner/A1 in whose name the shop is running, that too, without licence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail so far as

petitioner/A1 is concerned. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.