KHURSHEED ANWAR MOHD ALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Mundargi for the Applicant and Shri Salvi, A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) THIS is an application for bail. The applicant herein has been charged for offence punishable under sections 22 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act in C.R. No.70 of 1997 registered at Narcotic Cell, C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai. The case of the prosecution is that two Nigerian nationals were in possession of 1,43,128 ampules of 2 ml. containing Diazepam injections which is a psychotropic substance. It was during a raid carried by the police at Hotel White Pearl at Colaba, where the aforesaid foreign nationals were residing, that the aforesaid contraband was recovered. Further investigation in the matter revealed that the manufacturer of the said drug was one Manoj P. Gosaloa of Manpro Labs Pvt.Ltd. His statement was recorded as also of the Quality Control Manager Tiwari. Statements of another witness Shantaram Roy and some other witnesses were also recorded. There is no question of considering the bail application of Nigerian nationals and the person who is alleged to have placed order for manufacture, namely Jiladhar Bhirud, who are arraigned as accused nos.1, 2 and 4. They have also not applied for bail and their case stands entirely on different footing.

(3.) IT must be remembered that section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act makes very strict provisions for bail and therefore, the Court has also take into consideration even at prima-facie stage the evidence to find out whether there can be reasonable nexus established between the Applicant-accused and the contraband. In this case, the contraband was not something like Hashish or Gurd which are commonly known as narcotic drugs. The Diazepam injection is recently introduced as a psychotropic substance in the list and also the same can be manufactured by a person having licence. It is also the prosecution case that Mr.Bhirud is a well known figure in the pharmaceutical line and if Bhirud's dealings are with some persons not having any licence and not entitled to purchase the drug then merely because the present Applicant accompanied Bhirud not be sufficient to draw an inference against him of the knowledge that Bhirud was dealing in such a manner in respect of injections which were manufactured by a licence holder.