S. No.,"N a m e of
Medicine","Manufacturer
Address",Batch No.,"Total Number of
Strips (Nos.)","Tota l No of
Tablets @ 10
Tablets in Each
Strip
1.,Alprazol,"M a u z a Ogli,
Suketi Road
Kala-Amb, Distt.
Sirmour (H.P.),
Pin Code: 173030.","DVNTD27 9
,
-",500,5000
2.,Zolpidem Tartrate,"M/s JPEE Drugs
Sector-6A, Plo
No.53, SIDCUL
Ranipur,
Haridwar249403,
Uttrakhand, India","J,DT3693
t",500,5000
3.,Zolpidem Tartrate,,"J,DT3693",4400,44000
4.,Zolpidem Tartrate,,JDT3692,100,1000
,Total,,,5500,55000
manufacturers of medicines vide their letters to:,,,,,
a. M/s JPEE Drugs vide letter No.VIII/04/DZU/2019/628 dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure 53 on page 262 of main chargesheet).,,,,,
b. Director, Digital Vision vide letter No.VIII/04/DZU/2019/627 dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure 54 on page 263 of main chargesheet).",,,,,
10. M/s JPEE Drugs replied on 26.03.2019 that they have sold the medicines to M/s J P Medical Agencies, 25, Sant Singh Suri Market, Fountain",,,,,
Agra. They had also enclosed copy of the invoices and other documents in support of their letter dated 26.03.2019. (Annexure 58 on page 310 of main,,,,,
chargesheet). Thereafter, NCB sent a letter to M/s J P Medical Agencies vide letter No.VIII/04/DZU/2019/1787 dated 05.07.2019 asking them to",,,,,
submit details of Agency/Persons to whom the medicines were subsequently sold. (Annexure 72 Page 349 of main chargesheet).,,,,,
11. It is not on record to whom J P Medical Agencies (recipient of medicines from manufacturer M/s JPEE Drugs) have sold these medicines, as the",,,,,
letter has not been responded by M/s J P Medical Agencies. Even the Letter sent to M/s Digital vision remains un-replied. There is nothing on record,,,,,
to show that Mohan (petitioner herein) had ever purchased any of the above medicines.,,,,,
12. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is an Ex-Army Officer, who took voluntary retirement from Indian Army after serving 18 ½ years and",,,,,
got discharged by Indian Army on 20.11.2018 and joined S M Couriers, just two months prior to implication in the present case. While serving in the",,,,,
Indian Army, petitioner was awarded Chief Integrated Defence Staff Commendation certificate for his contribution to the Indian Army. Besides that,",,,,,
he has also been associated in Operation Shaurya, a counter insurgency operation in North East. He does not have any criminal history, however,",,,,,
prosecution with malafide and mischievous intention has labeled petitioner as Kingpin for committing above-stated offence, despite the fact that",,,,,
recovery has not been effected from him and no money trail has been found which implicates him.,,,,,
13. It is further submitted that petitioner was granted interim bail on 10.04.2019 on ground of ill-health of his wife due to her accident and thereafter,",,,,,
extension of bail was rejected vide order dated 02.07.2019. The interim bail was again allowed on 17.01.2020 due to death of his father and he,,,,,
surrendered on the expiry of interim bail on 01.02.2020. Thus, it is clearly established that petitioner has never misused or violated his interim bail and",,,,,
diligently obeyed the orders of court of law.,,,,,
14. When no recovery, no money trail, no incriminating evidence have been affected against petitioner, the question of any bar for grant of bail, as",,,,,
provided under section 37 of NDPS Act does not apply against petitioner.,,,,,
15. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the case of Kashmir Singh vs. NCB: MANU/DE/9207/2006, wherein this Court vide order dated",,,,,
18.08.2006 has categorically mentioned that bail can be granted even if section 37 of NDPS Act is operational after satisfying the conditions laid down,,,,,
in the said judgment. Learned counsel submits that the present case is perfect and securely covered under the judgment.,,,,,
16. He further relied upon the case of Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab: (2008) 16 SCC 417, whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as",,,,,
under:,,,,,
“Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise presumptions with regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the accused as also",,,,,
place burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal the said provision would clearly show that presumption would,,,,,
operate in the trial of the accused only in the event the circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the,,,,,
prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, the legal burden would shift. Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to",,,,,
prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of accused on the,,,,,
prosecution is ""beyond all reasonable doubt"" but it is `preponderance of probability' on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the",,,,,
foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused",,,,,
cannot be said to have been established.â€,,,,,
17. Moreover, in the case of Dalip Singh @ Langda vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Appln.1312/2018 delivered on 14.01.2019 this Court held as",,,,,
under:,,,,,
“11. On perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that there are two major missing links in the case of the prosecution. There is no link",,,,,
established by the prosecution between the petitioner with the alleged supplier Manoj. Further the entire case of the prosecution, in so far",,,,,
as petitioner is concerned is circumstantial i.e. based solely on disclosure statement of a co-accused which is per se not admissible without,,,,,
there being any corroboration. Prosecution has not been able to establish any connection between the subject offence and the bank,,,,,
accounts, where the petitioner is alleged to have been depositing money or with the holders of those accounts. Merely because the petitioner",,,,,
has been having telephonic conversation with the co-accused, would not be sufficient to hold that petitioner is guilty of the subject offence.",,,,,
There is no recovery made from the petitioner.â€,,,,,
18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that unless and until the petitioner meets the embargo of section 37 of the NDPS",,,,,
Act, there is all possibility and likelihood that petitioner will indulge in the same kind of activities which are detrimental to the interest of society at",,,,,
large. However, petitioner has not shown any reasonable ground for believing that he was not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any",,,,,
offence while on bail and as such, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.",,,,,
19. In addition to above, petitioner is actively involved in abetment and criminal conspiracy for commission of offence in this case. The complicity is",,,,,
apparent and admitted in the statements of petitioner and other accused persons recorded under section 67 of the Act which is admissible piece of,,,,,
evidence. There is recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substance and one person namely Lallan, pick up boy of M/s S.M. Courier",,,,,
company was sent by accused Birpal to collect the parcel and the same was to be sent to U.S.A. During investigation, it was revealed that accused",,,,,
Birpal in conspiracy with other accused persons including the petitioner was doing illegal business of trafficking of psychotropic substance. The parcel,,,,,
containing psychotropic substance was collected by pick-up boy Lallan from the Manager of Apex Courier on 19.01.2019. The act and role of all,,,,,
accused persons including petitioner surfaced and on the basis of sufficient material to show that all accused persons including petitioner were in,,,,,
criminal conspiracy and accordingly, they were arrested in this case and on completion of investigation, a detailed chargesheet supported with relevant",,,,,
documents and material was filed before the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to take the cognizance committed by accused,,,,,
persons in this case.,,,,,
20. It is further submitted that all accused persons are involved in criminal conspiracy as the offence is being committed with involvement and,,,,,
assistance of accused persons. In the present case, petitioner is actively involved in criminal conspiracy and abetment for commission of offence of",,,,,
this case thereby petitioner was also in constructive and conscious possession of the seized contraband mentioned above. It is admitted fact that,,,,,
petitioner was incharge of day-to-day business of M/s S.M. Courier and as such, offence in present case has been committed with consent,",,,,,
S. NO.,"DISTRIBUTOR
NAME, ADDRES
EMAIL, LICENC
NO.","BILL NO.
S,
E",BATCH NO.,"QUANTITY
SUPPLIED",
1,"M/s J.P. MEDICA
AGENCIES 2
SANT SINGH SUR
MARKET
FOUNTAIN AGRA
282003 GOWDUN
F-50 SITE C
INDUSTRIAL
AREA, SIKANDR
AGRA-7 (U.P.
DL.NO.
51GR/20B/2011 &
51AGR/21B/2011
NEW LICENSE N
AGA2016/20B/00046,
AGA2016/21B/00046,
VALID UPTO
19/10/2021.","LD/0591/12 DATE
52,1.12.2018 &
JID/0604/12 DATE
31.12.2018
-
A
)
O.
-","JDT-3692 12/2018
11/2021","2240 BOX
715 BOX",
2,"M/s J.P. MEDICA
AGENCIES 2
SANT SINGH SUR
MARKET
FOUNTAIN AGRA
282003 GOWDUN
F-50 SITE C
INDUSTRIAL
AREA, SIKANDR
AGRA-7 (U.P.
DL.NO.
51GR/20B/2011 &
51AGR/21B/2011
NEW LICENSE N
AGA2016/20B/00046,
AGA2016/21B/00046,
VALID UPTO
19/10/2021.","LD/0604/12 DATE
53,1.12.2018 &
JID/0620/01/ DATE
09.01.2019
-
A
)
O.
-","JDT-3693 12/2018
11/2021",240 BOX 2014 BOX,
