DHANANI AFZAL SALIMBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

(2.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11192008250036 of 2025 registered with Bavla Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural, for the offences punishable under Ss. 8(c), 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for short).

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Merely on the basis of statement made by the co-accused, his name has been impleaded as an accused. Nothing is recovered from conscious possession of the applicant. Whatever allegations levelled against the accused persons are that Applicant is running the business of pharmacy in the name of A A distributor and having the licence under Drug and Cosmetic Act. He is Engaged in the business of selling medicine and alleged cough syrup 'Codeine' came to be sold to one Safia Medical Store and in this regard letter dtd. 24/1/2025 came to be issued to provide 600 bottles of the said cough syrup. Safia Medical Store has given purchase order to the AA distributor, he has purchased the goods from the Patidar Pharma Agency and the said goods was supplied. The accused No.2 used to purchase the goods regularly from his firm, which was a routine business transaction. Whatever order passed by the Safiya Medical Store, the applicant has paid the amount to the Patidar as per the invoice and thereafter, he is in business transactions and sold out to the said cough syrup to the accused No.2 after following the procedure. There is no involvement of the present applicant. He has not committed in any manner any offence. He is ready and willing to joined the investigation and cooperate the investigation. One more argument, canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of Ajaz is stated, but he is not Ajaz. In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, he prays this Court to allow present application by enlarging the applicant on bail.