Manojkumar Madanlal Maheshwari vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Manojkumar Madanlal Maheshwari, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant claimed to be in the legitimate business of stocking and selling medicines, holding a license from the Rajasthan Government for Vinayak Enterprise, and his wife holding a similar license for Ganpati Medical Agency. He contended that the seized drugs, Spas-Trancan Plus, Editax N-2, and ALPRACAN-0.5, were not his responsibility and that he had supplied cosmetic items. He also pointed to GST invoices showing Vinayak Enterprise supplied these drugs from Ganpati Medical Agency. The applicant also stated he was on regular bail in another similar offence. The prosecution argued that the applicant's licenses did not cover the seized drugs, and the invoices produced were for cosmetic items, while investigation indicated the applicant supplied the drugs. The prosecution also stated the applicant's presence was required for investigation into the manufacturing and supply of these drugs.

Held

The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court found that the applicant was unable to demonstrate that the seized drugs were covered under the licenses he and his wife held. The Court noted that the licenses were issued under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, and that Schedule-C and Schedule-C(1) of these rules, which specified the types of products covered, did not include the drugs in question. The Court observed that the applicant's claim of dealing only in cosmetic items was contradicted by the investigation and the co-accused's statement, indicating the applicant supplied the drugs under the guise of medicines. The Court also deemed custodial interrogation necessary to ascertain the source of the prohibited drugs. Consequently, the Court found the reasons for rejecting the anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Court to be cogent and dismissed the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of supplying contraband drugs under the guise of medicines? 2. Whether the drugs seized (Spas-Trancan Plus, Editax N-2, and ALPRACAN-0.5) are covered under the licenses held by the applicant and his wife for Vinayak Enterprise and Ganpati Medical Agency, respectively, under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was involved in a legitimate medicine business and that the seized drugs were not his responsibility, asserting he had supplied only cosmetic items. He relied on licenses issued by the Rajasthan Government and GST invoices as evidence of his legitimate dealings. He also highlighted that he was already on bail in another similar case, suggesting his custodial interrogation was not necessary. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the application, arguing that the licenses produced by the applicant did not cover the seized drugs. The investigation revealed that the applicant, through Ganpati Medical Agency, supplied the drugs to the co-accused, despite the invoices being for cosmetic items. The State contended that the applicant's presence was crucial for investigating the source and genuineness of his dealings with prohibited drugs.