Allowed

M/s Durga Agencies, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Oct 2015CRLP/10771/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the petitioner had surrendered no evidence prior to the case registration and was a distributor selling to licensed entities, finding no prejudice to the investigation, and directed surrender before bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail; direction to surrender on or before 30.11.2015 and execute a personal bond with two sureties.

M/s Durga Agencies, Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10771 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal petition is field by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.11 of 2015 on the file of the C.I.D., P.S., Telangana, Hyderabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and Sections 468 and 471 IPC.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is as follows.

¶6

The Drug Controller Administration, TS, Hyderabad, received information from the Customs Headquarters Preventive Unit, Shillong, Meghalaya State to the effect that they had affected seizure of 5100 bottles of Phensedyl New Cough Linctus having batch No.PHB 4136 of Abbott Health Care Private Limited while smuggling to Bangladesh on 12.06.2014. On receipt of the said information, the Drug Inspectors inspected certain firms and found purchase and sale of Phensedyl New Cough Linctus 100 ml., with different batches to non-existing/closed/unlicensed firms. Further, it is alleged that number of persons are involved in this crime and various distributors supplied the said medicine to the medical shops, which are not having valid licences. It is alleged that the petitioner purchased the said medicine from the Abbott Healthcare Private Limited and sold the same to various distributors, which are not having valid licences.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a Distributor purchased the said medicine from Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, which is a manufacturer of the said drug, and the petitioner sold the same to M/s.Metrto Pharma and M/s.Jahnavi Pharma, Guntur, from July, 2014 to September, 2014.

¶8

Learned Public Prosecutor filed counter stating that the petitioner had purchased a huge quantity of Phensedyl new cough linctus 24000 x 100 ml in five

¶9

purchase invoices from M/s.Renuka Logistics, Hyderguda, Hyderabad and M/s.Abbott Healthcare Private Limited through its C&F Agencies, Nacharam, Hyderabad, and sold the same to M/s.Metro Pharma and M/s.Jahnavi Pharma, Guntur. On further investigation, it came to light that the said two firms are having drug licences, but the firms are not doing any business in the premises mentioned in the licences. It is further stated that the petitioner connived with others and indulged in illegal transportation of huge commercial quantity of cough syrup which contains Narcotic Substance of Codeine Phosphate beyond prescribed limits.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of its licence, which is valid upto 07.06.2017. He further submitted that M/s.Metro Pharma and M/s.Jahnavi Pharma, Guntur, to whom the petitioner sold its drugs, are having valid licence.

¶11

On perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that at the time of selling the medicine in question, which contains Narcotic substance according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is the Distributor and he has sold the same to the valid licence holders. The truth or otherwise of the validity of the licence is a matter to be investigated into during the course of investigation.

¶12

Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, nothing is recovered from the petitioner prior to registration of the crime or after registration of the crime. In view of the same, this Court feels that grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who purchased medicine in question from Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, which is a manufacturer of the said drug, will not cause any prejudice to the investigating agency. Further, it is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and to produce all the invoices so as to substantiate purchase of the medicine genuinely from the Abbott Healthcare Private Limited and also the bills pertaining to the selling of the medicine in question to various shops.

¶13

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court concerned on or before 30^th November, 2015 and on such surrender, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one

¶15

lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The petitioner is directed to report before Station House Officer concerned daily between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.

¶16

The criminal petition is accordingly allowed.

¶17

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶18

28.10.2015 pln

M/s Durga Agencies, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Durga Agencies, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasthoti Gangamma Vs The State of Ap.

Kandula Bapuji Vs The State of Ap.

Mudavath Laxman Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B.Rita Rani Vs The State of Telangana

N.Srikanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Jaffar Vs The State of Telangana