SANJAY KUMAR BHARTIYA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this application under Sec. 438 Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in SC No. 06A/2015 Vide F.No. DRI/HQ/GI/338/XVIII/ENQ -91NT - NIL/2015 under Ss. 25A/29 NDPS Act.

(2.) Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been registered by DRI officials under Sec. 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter, 'the Act') wherein the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated who is only an ordinary director and is not concerned with day -to -day affairs of the company. No recovery has been effected either from the petitioner or at his instance. He is ready to join investigation. The provisions of Sec. 37 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. The offence allegedly pertains to a controlled substance which is punishable under Sec. 25A of the Act where no minimum punishment has been provided, therefore, there is no embargo of Sec. 37 of the Act. Some of the co - accused have already been released on bail. As such the petitioner be also granted protection.

(3.) The bail application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel for the respondent - DRI on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail either in law or on facts. The petitioner had approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court at the very initial stage of investigation wherein interim protection was granted to him vide order dated 31.08.2015 and he was directed to join investigation. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the directions. Instead simultaneously, he filed an application for anticipatory bail before learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Ultimately the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.09.2015. The second application seeking same relief was dismissed. The application moved by the petitioner before the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla was dismissed as withdrawn after hearing arguments at length on 09.09.2015. There is no change in the circumstances. Rather the situation has worsened as now despite execution of process under Sec. 82 Cr.PC, the petitioner has failed to appear. A complaint for non -compliance of summons issued by the competent officer of the respondent department has been filed before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts for offence punishable under Sec. 172 and 174 IPC.