IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33287 of 2009 NISHAR HUSSAIN DAR, son of Md. Abdullah, resident of D-4, 2nd Floor, Satbari, New Delhi -----Petitioner Versus THE UNION OF INDIA THRU. NCB. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr S.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, CGC ----- 4. 16.10.2009 A supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has already been filed. Today, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. The offence alleged against the petitioner, who has been made an accused in connection with Special Case No.C2A4 of 2008, is under sections 8, 22, 22A and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, he has been made a victim of circumstances and no offence has been committed by him. Learned counsel submits that the allegation of the prosecution is to the effect that the petitioner was very much involved in the manufacturing of the alleged articles, which were contrabands under the N.D.P.S. Act. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has nothing to do with the manufacturing Unit i.e., M/s. A.R. Chemicals at Hajipur. The petitioner admittedly runs the business in the name and 2 style of M/s. National Biotech at Gaziabad and produces Anthranilic Acid against a valid licence. The above Unit of the petitioner at Gaziabad was raided on the same day on which date M/s. A.R. Chemicals at Hajipur was raided. In sum and substance, the learned counsel, after going through the complaints as also the submissions of the witnesses, including the petitioner under section 67 of the aforesaid Act, submits that there is nothing against the petitioner, which implicates him in the alleged manufacturing of the article, namely, Methaqualone and, as such, co-accused, who were arrested on the day of the raid at M/s A.R.Chemicals at Hajipur as also other co-accused may be responsible for manufacturing of the alleged articles. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, on the other hand, submits that the complicity of the petitioner is very much there as which would reveal on going through the statements of the co-accused persons as also the petitioner himself given thrice, which clearly mention to the effect that the petitioner was a partner of M/s A.R. Chemicals, which was involved in manufacturing of the aforesaid Methaqualone, a contraband article under the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned Counsel also submits that the aforesaid statement further reveals that the petitioner himself admitted to the effect that he was a partner in the M/s A.R. Chemicals along with other persons and the petitioner was one of the signatories of the Bank account which operated and withdrew the money. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the statement of the petitioner 3 recorded under section 67 of the aforesaid Act that the aforesaid Anthranilic Acid, which was being manufactured at Gaziabad, was required in connection with manufacture of said Mehaqualone, which was supplied from the other factory of the petitioner, namely, M/s. National Biotech at Gaziabad, which was being used here. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of the witnesses, including the petitioner, that the profit of the business was distributed to the persons, including the petitioner. Therefore, in sum and substance, the complicity of the petitioner would squarely reveal that the petitioner is involved in the manufacturing of the aforesaid Methaqualone in the factory of M/s. A.R. Chemicals. The said M/s. A.R. Chemicals earlier used to manufacture different medicinal items, of course, that has nothing to do, but so far the manufacturing of Methaqualone tablet is concerned, the involvement of the petitioner is amply revealing from the statements of the witnesses, co-accused as also the petitioner recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations as also the materials, which have been placed, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. The application is, accordingly, rejected. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)