HARISH MANIBHAI PATEL Vs. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four accused were implicated and charged under Section 29 read with 8(c) and Section 22 and Section 25-A read with 9A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). THE accused no.2 in NDPS Special Case No.40 of 1995 in the Special Court for Narcotic Cases at Bombay has filed bail Application No.142/1995. THE Bail Application has been rejected by the learned Special Judge by his order dated 16-6-1995. THE said order is sought to be revised before this Court in this Revision Application.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that he was implicated in this case based only on the statements of other accused and that even according to their statements no offence has been disclosed to have been committed in Bombay and that they alleged manufacture of methaquolone at Vapi in Gujrat cannot be connected with or compounded with a single offence and that the Petitioner was not found in possession of any narcotic substance. He therefore, submits that the prosecution has not made out any case against the Petitioner and the accused is entitled for bail. He further submitted that the Court below has not considered this legal aspect of the matter and refused his application for bail. According to the prosecution, the Mathaquolone powder seized in this case was manufactured by the accused no.2 at the instance of the accused no.1 who acquired the Acatic Anhydride, a raw material which is contraband commodity. It is also disclosed that the said activities of the accused are likely to be repeated. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the accused the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Application for bail.

(3.) IN view of this, I don't find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below or to grant bail to the accused. The application therefore is dismissed.