Sikar) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Regional Office Jaipur

: Mr. S.S. Hora Mr. Sahajveer Singh Mr. Pankaj Gupta Mr. Sourabh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP [2025:RJ-JP:9422] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-7011/2024] for NCB CBN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 25/02/2025 Order

1. These bail applications under Section 483 BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein who are in custody in connection Case No.VIII (IO)04/NCB/JPZU/2023 registered by NCB for offence under Sections 8/22(C), 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel representing the accused petitioners, contend that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner Madhusudan is the owner of M/s Swati Medical Store whereas petitioner Pawan Kumar is the salesman of the shop. The petitioners Madhusudan and Rahul are having requisite license to sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by retail the drugs specified in Schedules C and C(1) to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945.

3. As per the case set up against the petitioners, it is alleged that 13810 tablets containing ingredients such as Tramadol, Alprazolam, Nitrazepam, Clonazepam, etizolam were recovered from the petitioners Madhusudan and Pawan Kumar for which no proper documents or bills were available. It is alleged against the petitioners that the petitioners failed to produce requisite bills of sell and purchase whereas the fact of the matter remains that entire record with regard to sell and purchase of the medicines was produced by the petitioners to the investigating agency which was investigated by the Agency and notices were issued to several [2025:RJ-JP:9422] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-7011/2024] dealers and in their replies, they have clearly stated that drugs were sold by the them to the petitioners.

4. Arguing the bail application of accused petitioner Rahul, Learned counsel Shri Pankaj Gupta submits that the petitioner is running a medical shop as per the terms and conditions of the license issued by the competent authority and he has not flouted any of the conditions. He has been made accused in this case on the basis of the interrogation of the co-accused that some drugs have been purchased by them from Khandelwal Medicals without any bill whereas the petitioner has not sold any medicines without any bill to the co-accused persons and he has produced the requisite bills before the investigating agency. Apart from it, during investigation, no recovery of medicines having NDPS substance has been found from the possession of the petitioner.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the accused petitioners that no case is made out against the petitioners and even if the entire prosecution case is accepted to be true even than, the case would not travel to beyond offence punishable under Section 8/26 of the NDPS Act for which maximum punishment is three years. They are in custody since their dates of arrest. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. It is their first offence under the NDPS Act. Trial will take long time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

6. Per contra, Shri Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for NCB CBN opposes the bail applications. He submits that the petitioners failed to maintain the record of sell and purchase of the medicines(drugs) of NDPS substance. However, he fairly concedes that the petitioners Madhusudan and Rohit are [2025:RJ-JP:9422] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-7011/2024] having requisite license but during investigation, it has come out that some bills submitted by the petitioners were found forged and the persons in whose favour the bills were prepared, clearly stated that they have not purchased medicines from the petitioners. Shri Sharma submits that looking to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted.

7. At this stage, learned counsel submits that neither purchasers of the so-called forged bills were made accused in this case and nor they have been named as witnesses. The record maintained by the petitioners shows that medicines were supplied on receiving orders through bills.

9. Heard. Perused the material available on record. Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation.

10. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also the role/nature of allegations attributed to the accused petitioners; period of custody; absence of criminal antecedents under NDPS Act and trial will take time in [2025:RJ-JP:9422] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-7011/2024] its conclusion, I deem it just and proper to allow the bail applications.

11. The bail applications are accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Madhusudhan S/o Late Shri Bhawarlal (2) Pawan Kumar Didwania S/o Gauri Shankar Didwania and (3) Rahul S/o Late Ramballabh arrested in connection with Complaint No.VIII(IO)04/NCB/JPZU/2023 registered by NCB Jaipur shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that each of them shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

12. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not involve in similar offence(s) during pendency of bail granted by this Court. In case breach of this condition is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court.

13. It is made clear that the observation made herein is only for decision of these bail applications and shall not prejudice trial in any manner. Sudhir/752 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J