TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Courts, New Delhi on 10.09.2015. The second application was dismissed on 22.01.2016. The petitioner asked an another opportunity to join investigation which cannot be entertained because as stated above, number of opportunities were granted to him to join investigation but he failed to avail the same. As various summons were issued to him and he failed to appear as a result criminal complaint has been filed against him and the Court had issued non-bailable warrants and even process under Section 82 Cr.PC has been executed. Also the petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused who have been granted bail as, as per the prosecution case, as in their cases, provision of Section 37 of the Act was not attracted. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner himself, he is not entitled to the relief. - BAIL APPLN. No.224/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2016 - Sunita Gupta, J. For the Appellant : Mr Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr Jaideep Malik, Advs For the Respondent : Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv JUDGMENT Sunita Gupta, J. 1. Vide this application under Section 438 Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in support of the application is wrong as when the summons were sent on this very address, the family members of the petitioner 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 managing director of M/s G.T. Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., Kala Amb. (HP) and 75.370 kg of Ketamine Hydrochloride, 20 kg of Alprazolam Hydrochloride, both psychotropic substance under the Act and 6000 tablets containing pseudoephedrine, a controlled substance under the Act were found. It was further submitted that the investigation reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal in illicit market. The company had also diverted 74.995 kg of ketamine hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance in the illicit market through M/s Lakhsya Traders, Delhi by mis-declaring the same as controlled substances which specifically attracts the embargo of Section 37 of the Act. 7. Counsel further submits that Sultan Ansari was examined under Section 67 of the Act and in his voluntary statement dated 20.08.2015 he admitted the fact of clandestine removal of psychotropic substances and controlled substances from the petitioner s factory and diversion of the said substances to Delhi for illegal trade and other incriminating facts. He also disclosed active role of the petitioner in above prejudicial activities of illicit trade of psychotropic substances and controlled substances under the Act. It was denied that the petitioner was an ordinary director or was not in any way concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the company. In fact, the documents, namely, invoices and consignment notes issued at the 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner 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 independent witnesses. Over and above, 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. It is also alleged that the invoices and consignment notes issued at the factory were signed by the petitioner which indicate that he was regularly visiting the factory at Sirmaur and was also present at the said factory at the time of removal of aforesaid articles from the said factory. It is alleged that recovery of these substances attracts provisions of Section 37 of the Act. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
