The petitioners were released on bail after being arrested under Sections 8(c), 22(b) of The NDPS Act, 1985 as they had the license to deal in drugs.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 410221 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 8 Year 2021 Thana DHOLBAJJA District Bhagalpur Shabana Perween Female aged about 41 years Wife of Md. Imtiyaz Alam. 2. Md. Imtiyaz Alam @ Imteyaz Alam Male aged about 48 years Son of Md Both residents of village Ujani PS Naugachia District Bhagalpur The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s Mr. P K Shahi Senior Advocate with Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda Advocate Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay APP For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 16 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on 03.08.2021 which was allowed. 3. Heard Mr. P K Shahi learned senior counsel along with Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 4. The petitioners who are wife and husband apprehend arrest in connection with DholbajjaPS Case No. 08 of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.410221 dt.16 08 2021 2021 dated 24.01.2021 instituted under Sections 8(c) 22(b) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 5. The allegation against the petitioners who are wife and husband is that the 16 cartons containing bottles of Wiscof syrup each of 100 ml. which was seized from the possession of arrested co accused Abhiram Kumar had been bought from the shop of which petitioner no. 1 who is the licensee and petitioner no. 2 who is the authorized agent of petitioner no. 1 both were present in the shop when such purchase was made 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no allegation is made out from the entire reading of the FIR as even if it is accepted that the medicines which were seized by the police had been sold by the petitioners they being the legal distributors both wholesale and retail had committed no offence by selling it to any person. It was submitted that the agency of the petitioners has a licence to deal in such drugs and further that the amount which has been seized had been purchased by them from a wholesaler of the said drugs prior to the date on which the medicines were seized. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for any misuse by any person who had bought the medicines. Further it was submitted that the two licences of the petitioners’ agency one related to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.410221 dt.16 08 2021 godown and the other to the shop is valid till 2023 and 2025. It was submitted that the petitioners have an unblemished record having no other criminal antecedence. Moreover from an academic point of view learned senior counsel submitted that such statement by the arrested co accused before the police has no value in the eyes of law 7. Learned APP submitted that the person who has been caught with the drugs has stated he had bought the same from the shop of the petitioners 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the petitioners having licence to deal in drugs both as wholesalers and as retailers and having purchased the syrups in question from the authorised agency as also having no criminal antecedent the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for pre arrest bail. 9. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge Bhagalpur in Dholbajja PS Case No. 08 of 2021 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.410221 dt.16 08 2021 Procedure 1973 and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioners, who are husband and wife were taken into custody under  Section 8(c) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, “produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes”, section 22(b) of NDPS act, “where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.” This present petitioner is in connection with Dholbajja (Kadwa) PS Case No. 08 dated 24.01.2021. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgment was given by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 16th of August 2021 in the case of Shabana Perween and Md. Imtiyaz Alam versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 41027 of 2021, Mr. P K Shahi Represented as the senior advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners are husband and wife and they are accused of selling 16 cartons containing bottles of Wiscof syrup, each of 100 ml., which was seized from the possession of arrested co-accused, who had bought the same from the shop owned by the petitioners, petitioner no.1 is the licensee and petitioner no.2 is the agent and both were present when such a purchase was made and was clearly involved in the crime. The counsel representing the petitioners held that with regard to the allegations in the FIR  the petitioners are legal distributors both wholesale and retail and they sold medicines that were seized by the police and therefore committed no offense by selling the same. Further, the counsel held that the agency of the petitioners had a license to deal with drugs, and the amount seized was purchased by them from a wholesaler of the said drugs prior to the date on which the medicines were seized. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be held liable for any misuse of these drugs after it was being sold and the counsel also brought before the court the license of the parties which was valid till 2023 and 2025. The counsel held that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent and the statement made by the co-accused before the police have no value in the eyes of the law. The additional public prosecutor held that the person who was caught with drugs which is the co-accused in his statement stated that he bought the same from the shop of the petitioners. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that “the petitioners having a license to deal in drugs, both as wholesalers and as retailers and having purchased the syrups in question from the authorized agency as also having no criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for pre-arrest bail. The petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the Sessions Judge, in connection with PS Case No. 08 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners and (ii) that the petitioners shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of their bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”