VENKATESH ISTHARI NOMULA Vs. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with complaint dtd. 2/12/2023 with the Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad for the offences under Sec. 8(c), 22(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30, 35, 54(a), 54(c) and 54(d) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , against 8 persons including the present applicant. As per the lengthy complaint, the FIR was in respect of a factory which was producing huge quantity of the narcotic drug namely Alprazolam. Therefore, upon secret information, the premises of the factory was raided and a total 68.22 kg of psychotropic substance of Nordezepam was recovered from the said premises. Nordezepam was a substance which is produced prior in point of time, before the final product of Alprazolam is produced. Accordingly, at the time when the raid was carried out certain accused persons were arrested and subsequently during the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 15/10/2022. 1.1. As per the complaint, it is alleged that the present applicant had financed the co-accused persons to set up the manufacturing unit of Alprazolam and there is sufficient material against the present applicant in the form of CDR details and money transferred in the account of one of the co-accused namely Rafiqul Shaikh.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakia for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for respondent no.2-State and learned advocate Mr. Kartik Pandya for respondent no.1- Narcotic Control Bureau.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakia mainly made submissions on two grounds. He submitted that though there are 769 calls were made between the present applicant and co-accused Rafiqul Shaikh, but as per the complaint, the mobile which is alleged to have been used in the aforesaid calls was not registered in the name of present applicant. Second submission made by learned advocate Mr. Dholakia is that though banking transactions were referred to whereby the present applicant has allegedly financed the manufacturer of contraband, those were actually not banking transactions what was referred to in the complaint are UPI transactions that also from a different mobile number which is not registered in the name of present applicant. Therefore, the present applicant's arrest is without any basis and though the quantity of contraband seized is commercial quantity, with regard to the same also, there are no concrete evidence to the effect that the present applicant is involved in the offence, either in financing for manufacturing of contraband or that was in constant touch with other co-accused persons. Learned advocate Mr. Dholakia also submitted that though the contraband recovered from the manufacturing unit was commercial quantity, at this stage despite the rigors of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act, there is a reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of offences as charged with and whether he is likely to commit such an offence under the Act while on bail. Learned advocate Mr. Dholakia also submitted that as the arrest of present applicant is based upon the statement of co-accused recorded under Sec. 67 of NDPS Act, as per the settled principles of law, enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2021 (4) SCC 1, the said statements are inadmissible and therefore no reliance ought to be placed on the same. In view of the above, present applicant be enlarged on regular bail.