Mukeshbhai Shankarbhai Chaudhary And Anr vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court allowed the petition for bail, holding that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of bail. The reasoning appears to be based on several factors presented by the petitioners. Firstly, the Court noted the lack of reliable evidence to establish that the goods were actually consigned by the petitioners, specifically the absence of supportive invoices, GST documentation, or e-way bills, which are mandated for consignments exceeding Rs. 50,000/- under the CGST Rules. The handwritten nature of the bilty and its unproven connection to the petitioners was also considered. Secondly, the Court took into account the petitioners' assertion that they had closed their medical store 6-7 months prior to the alleged incident and were engaged in other employment, which would make it impossible for them to have sent the consignment. The testimony of the owner of Kuthari Transport, who did not support the prosecution's case regarding the petitioners' involvement, was also a significant factor. Furthermore, the Court observed that the recipient of the consignment, Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, and another co-accused, Varinder Kumar, had already been granted bail. The Court also emphasized that the petitioners were not found in conscious possession of the contraband, rendering the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. Finally, the Court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the right to a speedy trial, concluding that the detention of the petitioners was not serving any purpose and they were unlikely to influence witnesses. The operative direction was to release the petitioners on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety, and adhering to specified conditions.

Facts

The petitioners, Mukeshbhai Shankarbhai Chaudhary and another, are seeking bail in FIR No. 69 dated 12.08.2019, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The FIR was lodged based on a tip-off regarding stored contraband intoxicant tablets. During the investigation, a co-accused, Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, disclosed the location of 2,34,000 Tredol-100 tablets at Kuthari Transport, Bathinda. The prosecution alleges that these tablets were manufactured by Neutec Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., supplied to M/s Shri Shakti Medical Agency, and sent through Kuthari Transport. The bilty for transportation was allegedly issued by M/s Lifeline Medical Agency, registered in the names of the petitioners. The petitioners claim innocence, stating they had a valid drug license but had closed their medical store six to seven months prior to the incident and were engaged in other employment. They also point to the lack of supporting GST documentation or e-way bills for the consignment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners have a nexus with the commission of the crime, specifically concerning their alleged role as consigners of the contraband, considering the absence of supporting invoices, GST documentation, or e-way bills, and the handwritten nature of the bilty? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and potentially CGST Rules). 2. Whether the petitioners' claim of having closed their business and being engaged in other employment prior to the alleged incident negates their involvement in the consignment of the contraband? (Mixed question of law and fact). 3. Whether the prosecution has established sufficient evidence to link the petitioners to the booking of the consignment, particularly in light of the testimony of the transport company owner and the fact that the recipient of the consignment has already been granted bail? (Mixed question of law and fact). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners are innocent and have no nexus with the crime, being implicated solely on the disclosure statement of an already-custodial co-accused. They possessed a valid drug license for M/s Lifeline Medical Agency until 2023. The only alleged role is as consigners, but there's no reliable evidence like invoices, GST documentation, or e-way bills to support this. The bilty is handwritten and its connection to them is unestablished. They had closed their medical store 6-7 months prior and were employed elsewhere. The owner of Kuthari Transport did not support the prosecution's case regarding their involvement. The recipient of the consignment, Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, has been granted bail. Respondent's arguments: The petitioners have a direct nexus as consigners. The investigation traced the manufacturing and supply chain, identifying M/s Shri Shakti Medical Agency as the recipient, registered in the name of Patel Bharmal Bhai @ Bharmalbhai. An employee of Jaipur Golden Transport Company stated that the contraband was booked by the petitioners, Arvind Bhai and Mukesh Bhai, partners of M/s Lifeline Medical Agency.