Ankit Bung@ Maheshwari vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the offence prima facie appears to be established, and the offence is punishable under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies. The Court noted that a huge commercial quantity of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate was seized from the co-accused, and subsequently, 127 cartons worth Rs. 25,90,800 were seized from the petitioner's possession by the Crime Branch, Bhopal. The petitioner did not issue any valid bill to the co-accused, and therefore, it cannot be said that the sale was for therapeutic purposes or to a registered medical practitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as there is no material on record to show that he has not committed the offence or is not likely to commit it. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents like Tofan Singh and the bail orders cited by the petitioner, as in those cases, no recovery was made from the applicant. Therefore, the bail application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankit Bung alias Maheshwari, is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 109/2024, registered on February 1, 2024, at Police Station Maiher, for offences under the NDPS Act and the M.P. Drug Control Act. The prosecution alleges that on February 1, 2024, 1800 bottles of Onerex cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, valued at Rs. 3,06,000, were seized from four individuals traveling in a car. These individuals disclosed that they had purchased the syrup from the petitioner. Subsequently, the Crime Branch, Bhopal, seized 127 cartons of the same cough syrup, valued at Rs. 25,90,800, from the petitioner's rented premises. The petitioner has been in detention since March 6, 2024. The petitioner claims to be a licensed holder for selling drugs wholesale and retail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's memorandum statement, leading to the seizure of cough syrup from his premises, is admissible and sufficient for denying bail, considering the petitioner's claim of being a licensed dealer? (Section 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Act, Rule 52A of NDPS Rules). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. - The co-accused's memorandum is neither legal nor admissible in evidence for conviction, relying on Tofan Singh vs. The State of Tamil Nadu. - No recovery was made from the petitioner, and he is a valid license holder for "R.S. Enterprises" to sell drugs as per Form 21-B, citing Vibhore Shukla vs. The State of M.P. and Pappu Gupta vs. State of M.P. as precedents where bail was granted on similar grounds. State's Arguments: - A huge commercial quantity of Onerex cough syrup was seized from the co-accused, who stated they purchased it from the petitioner. - The Crime Branch, Bhopal, seized 127 cartons worth Rs. 25,90,800 from the petitioner's possession, thus, a significant recovery was made. - While the petitioner has a license, he has not obtained a license under the NDPS Rules for dealing with essential narcotic drugs like Codeine Phosphate, as per Rule 52A(3) and Section 21 of the NDPS Act. - The petitioner sold the cough syrup without a valid bill, violating the rules.