Gujarat High Court
Gordhanbhai Nathabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 8911 of 2025
==========================================================
GORDHANBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NEERAJ SONI(3433) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Neeraj Soni for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for respondent-State.
2. The present successive bail application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS for releasing him on regular bail in connection with the Crime Register F.No. DRI/AZU/GI-02/ENQ-01/NDPS/2024 registered with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21, 23 & 28 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is aged 72 years and has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence on 16.01.2024. He further submitted that as per the guidelines of the National Legal Services Authority, New Delhi, the applicant being the old aged person is entitled to be Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 22:54:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined enlarged on bail. He therefore submitted that considering his deteriorating health and old age, this Court may allow the present application and enlarge the applicant upon suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present application.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. At the outset it is required to be noted that the applicant herein had earlier preferred application for regular bail being Criminal Misc. Application No. 17820 of 2024 which was dismissed by this Court vide reasoned order dated 25.10.2024. While dismissing the said application, this Court has observed the following reasons:
"5. Learned Advocate Mr. Siddharth H. Dave appearing on behalf of the Respondent - The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit has opposed the present Application. He submitted that the investigating agency had recorded the statement of one Bharatsinh K. Jadeja. He, in his statement has stated that he used to visit the premises of Prarthana Chemicals to provide guidance of Inorganic Salts. In December 2021 he had offerred Mittal Gordhanbhai Patel, i.e. the co-accused who was the partner of M/s Prarthana Chemicals to join M/s Meghashri Agri Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd. as Director. On that occasion Gordhanbhai Nathabhai Patel, i.e. the present Applicant had asked him the details about the factory and the items being manufactured at the firm and who were the proposed buyers for the firms. The necessary information in that regard had been provided to the present Applicant by the said Bharatsinh K. Jadeja. Thereafter the said Bharatsinh K. Jadeja had sold the 50% shares of the Company in question to the present Applicant and thus the Applicant was very much aware about the activities of the Company. He further submitted that the present Applicant had provided free access to one Nagarajan Darmalingam in his capacity as a Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 22:54:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined Director of M/s Meghashri Agri Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd. He further submitted that the Applicant was very much involved in day-day-day activities of the Company as he has signed various agreements with various authorities towards day-to- day adminsitration of the Company in question. The provision of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has been complied with by the investigating agency. He submitted that the substance of Ketamine worth 96 Kgs. which is a commercial quantity had been seized from the Company of which the present Applicant is the Director and therefore rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply to the facts of the present case. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.
5.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Siddharth H. Dave seeks to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:
(i) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4288/2023 in case of Suhail Ahmed Bhat v. National Investigation Agency dated 11.04.2023.
(ii) (2000) 9 SCC 221 - Union of India v. Ikram Khan and others.
(iii) (2000) 9 SCC 222 - Rajesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar and Another.
(iv) (2009) 1 SCC 482 - Ratan Kumar Vishwas v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
(v) (2009) 1 SCC 487 - Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Company & Others.
(vi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 - Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu
(vii) 2024 INSC 11 - State of NCT Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely
6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. The present Applicant is sought to be arraigned in the present offence as he is working as Director of the Company in question. It is the case of the prosecution that one M/s Meghashri Agri Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd. had been licensed to manufacture Hydroxylimine Hydrochloride under the guise of manufature of this substance. The said Company was found manufacturing the contraband substance of Ketamine. The substance, for manufacturing of which the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 22:54:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined Company was licensed, had to be exported and while the said substance was being exported, it was noticed that the substance which was sought to be exported was Ketamine and not the substance which it had been authorized to manufacture under the license.
7. The present Applicant was working as a Director of the Company namely M/s. Meghashri Agri Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Applicant that the Applicant was the Director of the Company for the name sake and he was not responsible for the day-to-day administrative affairs of the Company. However, the record indicates that the present Applicant had joined the Company in the capacity of Director on his own volition and thereafter the Applicant was also looking after the day-to-day administration of the Company. The investigation carried out so far indicates that the present Applicant had gathered information about the activities of the Company, the product which was being manufactured in the Company and the prospective customers of the said product. The record is also indicative of the fact that the Applicant in his capacity as a Director of the Company had entered into various agreements with several parties in furtherance of the administration of the Company in question.
8. As per the case of the prosecution, the Company was in the process of exporting 96 Kgs. of Ketamine, which is a contraband substance, under the guise of the export of the product which the Company was licensed to manufacture. It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that the substance of Ketamine can be derived from the product which was manufactured by the Company only if the said product was administered tremendous heat and since the samples were sent to FSL after some delay from the date of its seizure, there is a reason to believe that the quality of the samples may have been compromised which had resulted into the substance of Ketamine being found in the samples. This contention on behalf of the Applicant does not appear to be convincing as the substance in question had been seized while the same was in the process of being exported. Whether the delay caused in sending the samples to the FSL Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 22:54:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8911/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined had resulted into any prejudice to the present Applicant or the other co-accused is the matter of trial.
9. It is also sought to be contended on behalf of the Applicant that the provision of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has been committed violation of whereas it is the argument on behalf of the prosecution that the said provision has been scrupulously followed. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the provision of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has been violated, the question of any prejudice is caused to present Applicant and the other co-accused because of the same is also the matter of trial.
10. The quantity of the contraband substance involved in the present offence is the commercial quantity and therefore the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply to the facts of the present case. "
6. The aforesaid order was carried by the present applicant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No. 1393 of 2025 and the said petition was withdrawn by the present applicant. Thus, the order passed by this Court has attained finality. The learned advocate for the applicant was not in a position to show any change in circumstances.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid, no case is made out. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) Radhika Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 22:54:00 IST 2025