Allowed

Niyazuddin @ Vicky v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2023MCRC/1204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order heard four connected bail applications arising from the same crime involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The court rejected bail for one applicant accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs but granted bail to three others accused of possessing intermediate quantities or involved in licensed pharmaceutical distribution.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications of Mukesh Sahu were dismissed; applications of Niyazuddin, Viral Patel, and Aakash Vishwakarma were allowed on personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

Niyazuddin @ Vicky Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MCRC No. 9685 of 2022 & other connected matters

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 9685 of 2022

¶6

Mukesh Sahu S/o Shri Ramcharan Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Karsa Post Aaunsa P.S. Bhilai Pandri Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Azad Chowk PS Azad Chowk District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent MCRC No. 1204 of 2023

¶9

Niyazuddin @ Vicky S/o Rukku Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o In Front Of Rajkumar College, Beside Khajana Shop, Azad Chowk, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Azad Chowk, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

¶12

MCRC No. 1872 of 2023

¶13

Viral Patel S/o Shri Mukesh Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Kalol Police Station Kalol, District : Gandhinagar, Gujarat ---- Applicant

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Azad Chawk Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

---- Respondent

¶17

MCRC No. 10002 of 2022

¶18

Aakash Vishwakarma S/o Late Kailash Vishwakarma Aged About 33 Years R/o Trimurti Nagar, Krishna Colony, Jabalpur, Police Station- Gohalpur, Madhya Pradesh

---- Applicant

Versus

MCRC No. 9685 of 2022 & other connected matters

¶23

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

¶24

For Applicant in MCRC No.9685/22:- Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Adv For Applicant in MCRC No.1204/23:- Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Adv. For Applicant in MCRC No.1872/23:- Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Adv

¶25

assisted by Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Adv. For Applicant in MCRC No.10002/22:-Mr. Pawan Kumar Kesharwani and Mr. Anmol Sharma, Adv.

¶26

For Respondent-State :- Mr. Adil Minhaj, G.A.

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶28

11/04/2023

¶29

Since all these bail applications arises out of same crime number and same Police Station, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

¶30

These are first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.306/2022 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22(b), 22(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶31

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the basis of secret information, Police of Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur caught applicant Niyazuddin @ Vicky and one J. Bhaskar Rao and seized, 120 tablets of Alpazolam weighing 18 grams & 72 tablets of Tramadol weighing 43.2 grams from the possession of applicant Niyazuddin @ Vicky and 144 tablets of Tramadol weighing 86.4 grams & one motor cycle from the possession of J. Bhaskar. On the basis of their memorandum statements, Police caught one Ravindra Goyal, who is said to be the owner of Pratham Medical Store, Raipur and from his possession seized 14,400 tablets of Tramadol weighing 8.64 kgs. On enquiry, Ravindra Goyal disclosed in his memorandum statement name of applicant Mukesh Sahu from whom Police seized 28,800 tablets of Tramadol weighing 17.28 kgs. Thereafter, on the basis of

¶32

¶33

MCRC No. 9685 of 2022 & other connected matters

¶34

memorandum statement of applicant Mukesh Sahu, Police caught Mohd. Hassan and seized 1,15,200 tablets of Tramadol weighing 69.12 kg from his possession and also caught his son Sahil Hassan and seized 3744 tablets of Tramadol and 41,600 tablets of Alpazolam weighing 2.247kg and 4.992 kg respectively. During investigation it was revealed that alleged drug substances were purchased from a firm in the name and style of Maa Narmada Pharma at Jabalpur under the proprietorship of applicant Aakash Vishwakarma. It is also a case of prosecution that applicant Aakash Vishwakarma purchased the said tablets of Tramadol from a firm in the name and style of Vinayak Pharma at Gujarat, which has purchased the alleged Tramadol tablets from Viral Patel, who is proprietor of firm We Care Health Care at Gujarat. Based on above facts, case was registered against the applicants.

¶35

Learned Senior counsel Mr. Prafull N. Bharat assisted by counsel Mr. Mayank Chandrakar appearing for applicant Viral Patel would submit that applicant is a proprietor of firm in the name and style of We Care Health Care Pharma having license FORM 20B (Annexure A2 at page 15) to sell, stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in [Schedules C, C(1) and X] under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short 'Rules, 1945') and also having license FORM 21B (at page 16) for drugs specified in Schedules C and C(1) [excluding those specified in Sch. X] under the Rules, 1945. According to these licenses, applicant Viral Patel is an authorized person to sell and purchase SPAS-TRANSCAN PLUS (Tramadol) and bill book in this regard has also been seized from him. On being notice given by the Police under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Viral Patel has also submitted receipts for sell and purchase of alleged Tramadol tablets despite that Police has implicated him in the instant case. It is further submitted that applicant is in jail since 17.2.2023 and charge-sheet has already been filed on 03.3.2023, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶36

Learned counsel Mr. Pawan Kumar Kesharwani and Mr. Anmol Sharma appearing on behalf of applicant Aakash Vishwakarma would submit that applicant Aakash Vishwakarma is proprietor of

¶37

¶38

MCRC No. 9685 of 2022 & other connected matters

¶39

firm in the name and style of Maa Narmada Pharma at Jabalpur, who is also having a license FORM 20-B (Annexure A2 at page 13) to sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in [Schedules C and C(1) and X] under the Rules, 1945 and also having license FORM 21-B (at page 14) to sell, stock, or exhibit or offer for sale, distribute by wholesale drugs specified in Schedules C and C(1) [excluding those specified in Schedule X] under the Rules, 1945. It is further submitted that applicant Aakash Vishwakarma had purchased the said contraband from a firm in the name and style of Vinayak Pharma at Gujarat and he is having all the necessary receipts for purchase of alleged contraband and thereafter he sold Tramadol tablets to Mohd. Hassan on showing license of Goyal Medical, which is said to be fake. It is again submitted that applicant Aakash Vishwakarma is in jail since 19.10.2022 and charge-sheet has already been filed, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶40

Learned counsel Mr. Pragalbha Sharma appearing for applicant Niyazzudin @ Vicky would submit that only intermediate quantity of narcotic substance (Alpazolam and Tramadol) has been seized from his possession and in similarly situated case, co-accused J. Bhaskar Rao has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.1.2023 in MCRC No.10554/ 2022 and since the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.10.2022, he may also be enlarged on bail.

¶41

Learned counsel Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, appearing for applicant Mukesh Sahu would submit that applicant is an employee of one Ravindra Goyal and on instructions of Ravindra Goyal, he was carrying 28,800 tablets of Tramadol weighing 17.28 kgs. He would further submit that applicant is in jail since 12.10.2022 and charge-sheet has already been filed, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶42

Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that all the applicants under conspiracy to sell huge quantity of narcotic substance are involved in commission of alleged crime and in total 126.03 kg of Tramadol and 8.513 kg of

¶43

¶44

MCRC No. 9685 of 2022 & other connected matters

¶45

Alpazolam narcotic substance has been seized from the accused persons which shows that there is a racket for selling narcotic substance illegally in interstate. He further submits that applicant Viral Patel runs sham company and in the name of that company he used to sell and purchase narcotic drugs in huge quantity. However, on being enquired learned State counsel would submit that receipts seized from applicant Viral Patel are found to be correct as has been mentioned by SHO, Azad Chowk, Raipur in his Jamanat Virodh Patra. Learned State counsel also submits that since there is seizure of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs from the applicants and there is involvement of applicants in interstate racket to sell, purchase and supply of narcotic drugs, bail applications filed by them are liable to be dismissed.

¶46

I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the case diary as well as material available on record.

¶47

Perusal of case diary and copy of charge-sheet would show that on the basis of memorandum statement of accused Mukesh Sahu, 28,800 tablets of Tramadol weighing 17.28 kg were seized from his house and he could not show any document in this regard, hence, considering the seizure of whopping quantity / commercial quantity of narcotic substance from possession of the applicant Mukesh Sahu, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant Mukesh Sahu.

¶48

Accordingly, bail application of Mukesh Sahu bearing MCRC No.9685/2022 is rejected .

¶49

12.So far as applicant Niyazuddin @ Vikcky is concerned, an intermediate quantity of Alpazolam and Tramadol was seized from his possession and similarly situated co-accused J Bhaskar Rao has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench in MCRC No.10554/2022 vide order dated 25.1.2023, hence, considering the totality of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to him.

¶50

13.So far as applicants namely Viral Patel and Aakash Vishwakarma are concerned, as per prosecution case, they are proprietors of firms in the name and style of We Care Health Care, Gujarat and Maa Narmada Pharma, Jabalpur respectively having drug licenses FORM 20B and FORM 21B and case diary shows that

¶51

¶52

MCRC No. 9685 of 2022 & other connected matters

¶53

bill book receipts for sell and purchase are also seized from applicant Viral Patel which are said to be genuine as per report of concerned SHO. Considering the above facts and also the fact that as per memorandum statement of Aakash Vishwakarma he has sold Tramadol tablets to accused Mohd. Hassan only when he showed drug license in the name of Goyal Medical, hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants Viral Patel in MCRC No. 1872/2023 and Aakash Vishwarkarma in MCRC No.10002/2022.

¶54

14.Accordingly, bail applications of Niyazuddin @ Vicky (MCRC No.1204/2023), Viral Patel (MCRC No.1872/2023) and Aakash Vishwakarma (MCRC No.10002/2022) only are allowed and it is directed that aforesaid three applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing one personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on conditions that-

¶55

Applicants shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶56

Applicants shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶57

If applicants are found involved in similar offence in the future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail.

¶58

Certified copy as per rules.

¶59

SD/-

¶60

( N.K. Chandravanshi ) Judge

¶61

Ayushi

Niyazuddin @ Vicky v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niyazuddin @ Vicky v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rammurar Padwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammed Asgar Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arif Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Yehtaram @ Pappu Vs State of Chhattisgarh