Ankush Paliwal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Ankush Paliwal, is seeking bail in connection with a case registered under the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution alleges his involvement as a partner in Bio-Lab Remedies, Bundi, Rajasthan, from where drugs were seized. The applicant claims he is innocent and that Bio-Lab Remedies holds a valid drug license from the Rajasthan Government. He supplied drugs to a co-accused, Vaibhav Khandelwal, who provided a GST registration certificate and a Chhattisgarh Drug Licence. The State contends that the applicant failed to produce any valid license for the purchase and sale of seized contraband drugs, even after a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and that his claim of verifying the co-accused's drug license without verifying his own indicates involvement in the offense.

Held

The Court rejected the bail application of the applicant, Ankush Paliwal. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of both parties, and the seriousness of the crime. It noted that the seized drugs fall under the category of Scheduled drugs under the NDPS Act, 1985, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Crucially, the Court found that the quantities seized were significantly above the commercial quantity specified under the NDPS Act. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the applicant failed to produce any proper documentation to the State, even after being served with a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, indicating he did not possess a valid license for the purchase and sale of the seized contraband drugs. Consequently, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case to grant bail. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months, if no legal impediment exists.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of possessing and selling scheduled drugs in quantities exceeding commercial limits under the NDPS Act, 1985? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He asserted that Bio-Lab Remedies, a partnership firm of which he is a partner, possesses a valid drug license from the Rajasthan Government, allowing it to sell and distribute drugs. He further stated that the supply of alleged drugs was made against a purchase order from a co-accused, who had provided a GST registration certificate and a valid Chhattisgarh Drug Licence. Therefore, he contended that no crime was committed. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant failed to produce any valid license for the purchase and sale of the seized contraband drugs, even after receiving a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The State argued that the applicant's claim of verifying the co-accused's GST registration but not his own drug license demonstrates his involvement in the offense. The State also highlighted that the seized drugs were scheduled drugs and the quantities were above commercial limits.