9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. The offence allegedly pertains to a controlled substance which is punishable under Section 25A of the Act where no minimum punishment has been provided, therefore, there is no embargo of Section 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 Sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner reported that the petitioner had not come to the premises for a long time and they are not having any information. Copies of the reports on the summons / warrants have been filed. 5. Counsel further submits that the charge-sheet had to be filed against 12 persons including petitioner within 60 days as number of persons are involved and qua some of the accused the offences were such that if the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days, they would have been entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.PC. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the provisions of Section 37 of the Act are attracted. Reference was made to the averments made in the complaint where it is specifically alleged that the petitioner is the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stance. The purchase, possession, storage of these substances were not reflected in the statutory records prescribed under the NDPS Rules, 1985 and the NDPS (Regulations of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013 respectively. The recovered substances were seized. On 17.08.2015, a consignment of 275 kg of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride, a controlled substance was clandestinely and fraudulently removed from the petitioner's company under parallel invoices for delivery to M/s Lakshya Traders, New Delhi out of which 250 kg was seized by DRI from the business premises of M/s Lakshya Traders, New Delhi on 19.08.2015. The said 275 kg pseudoephedrine hydrochloride was received in the manufacturing unit of the petitioner for manufacture of BIOCET tablet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory signed by the petitioner clearly indicate that the petitioner was regularly visiting the factory at Sirmaur, HP during the relevant period and was also present at the said factory at the time of removal of pseudoephedrine and ketamine from the said factory even at late night. The invoices issued at the factory were signed either by the petitioner or authorized signatory of the company, namely, Jai Ballabh who is also absconding and all the consignment notes in respect of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride and ketamine hydrochloride were signed by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that summons under Section 67 of the Act for his appearance on 28.08.2015 and 31.08.2015 were issued to the petitioner to join investigation. The same wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms, he could not join investigation and in case an opportunity is granted, he will join investigation. As regards the statement of Sultan Ansari under Section 67 of the Act, it is submitted that same was retracted, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same. 10. Needless to say, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature. He is the managing director of M/s Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., Kala Amb. (HP). As per the allegations 75.370 kg of ketamine hydrochloride, 20 kg of Alprazolam hydrochloride, both psychotropic substance under the Act and 6000 tablets containing pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, a controlled substance under the Act were recovered in the presence of Sultan Ansari, manager-cum-chemist of the company and two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel showing his inability to appear on the ground that he was in Nasik Kumbh Mela. Thereafter, he approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh seeking protection. He was granted interim protection subject to the condition that he shall join investigation as and when required by the investigating agency besides other conditions. Several summons were sent to him to join investigation on 2, 03/07/10/15.09.2015 but he failed to join the investigation. Simultaneously, while his application before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was pending, he also approached the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi and after arguments, withdrew the application before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 09.09.2015 and the application before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
