Zuber Idreesbhai Dadi vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Zuber Idreesbhai Dadi, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the illegal sale of codeine phosphate syrup. The FIR was lodged after a raid on the residence of the main accused, Ayub Hussain Bokda, where 1240 bottles of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate were confiscated. The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, stating no nexus with the main accused and that the bottles confiscated had a different batch number than those he procured. He also claimed invoices linking him to the sale were forged and had lodged a complaint with the GST Commissioner regarding this. The State opposed the bail, relying on the investigating officer's report, panchnama, and invoices collected, asserting the applicant's direct connection to the sale of cough syrup to the main accused without bills.

Held

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered several factors in its decision, including the role attributed to the applicant, the fact that he was implicated based on a co-accused's statement, the bottles being recovered from the main accused, and the applicant possessing a valid license to deal with medical products. Prima facie, the investigation suggested the allegations of selling cough syrup related to only 22 bottles. The Court also noted that custodial interrogation was not required at this stage as the applicant had cooperated with the investigation. The Court relied on judgments from the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing a surety, subject to various conditions including cooperation with the investigation and presence as required. The Court also clarified that the investigating agency could still apply for police remand before the Magistrate, who would decide on merits.

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 involvement in the illegal sale of codeine phosphate syrup? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated based solely on the statement of a co-accused, with no other material connecting him. He highlighted a discrepancy in batch numbers of the confiscated bottles versus those he procured. He asserted his legitimate business operations and claimed the invoices linking him were forged, supported by a complaint filed with the GST Commissioner. He further argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and he would cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the application, relying on the investigating officer's report, panchnama, and collected invoices. They contended that the applicant was directly connected to the sale of cough syrup to the main accused, citing specific invoices for 22 and 50 bottles. The State argued that the applicant sold these bottles without bills, indicating direct involvement in the offence, and therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted due to the nature and gravity of the offence.