(1.) This bail application has been preferred under Section 439 Cr PC by the petitioner being the second such application. The first application preferred by the petitioner was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the trial court. Upon moving the trial court, the application for bail was rejected by the trial court on 26.11.2014.
(2.) As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner along with the coaccused Rakesh Arora were apprehended red handed while making delivery of the pseudoephedrine which admittedly is a controlled substance, to the other co-accused, an African national called Anthony Okolo. On the disclosure of the petitioner and the co-accused Rakesh Arora, further recovery of 183 kgs. of pseudoephedrine in different forms was made. Indian currency 11,99,000/-, US dollars 210 and Dinars 2045 were also recovered from the possession of the co-accused Rakesh Arora. The samples of the substance recovered tested positive for pseudoephedrine, though some of the samples tested negative.
(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was merely an employee of Rakesh Arora, the co-accused, who was the kingpin. The petitioner was merely acting on the instructions of his employer. Learned counsel submits that Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) is not applicable in the present case, since pseudoephedrine is not a narcotic substance. He submits that the petitioner has been in custody since the date of his arrest, i.e. 02.05.2013. Learned counsel submits that this Court in the decision in Niranjan Jayantilal Shah v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence decided on 19.11.2013 (Bail Appl No.1202/2013) had granted bail to the accused, where the recovery of the same controlled substance had been made of 100 kgs. This decision referred to had relied upon several other earlier decisions of the Court, where recovery of much larger quantities of controlled substance have been made.