Recently, the High Court of Gujarat, while rejecting the bail application, held that offences prescribed under the NDPS Act are not only a menace to a particular individual but to the entire society especially, the youth of the country and such offences have a cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a substantial chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years.
Brief Facts:
The prosecution alleged that the police received a tip-off about the accused, Salman @ Aman Mohammed Hanif Zaveri, transporting narcotic substances in his car. Upon conducting a raid, the police arrested Salman and recovered 1011.82 grams of Mephedrone. Following due legal procedure, an FIR was registered. The present applicant, Pragnesh Pravinbhai, was implicated based on the statement of the co-accused and other collected evidence. He was arrested on 18.10.2020 and remained in jail since then.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated and was not named in the FIR. The entire case against him was based on the statement of the co-accused, which is not sufficient for conviction. Furthermore, the charge sheet implicated 19 individuals, of whom eight had already been granted bail despite having equal or greater involvement. The applicant was not found in possession of contraband, nor was he caught red-handed. Considering the lengthy trial process and the four-year incarceration, the applicant sought bail on the grounds that prolonged detention would amount to pre-trial conviction. He was an educated individual with a degree in pharmacy and a bright future, and hence, he should be granted bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant was the main manufacturer of the contraband substance. He had rented a house under the guise of manufacturing legitimate pharmaceuticals, but in reality, he was involved in the illegal production of Mephedrone. The landlord's statement confirmed this. Further, statements from suppliers of raw materials and chemicals implicated the accused in the illicit trade. Given the gravity of the offense and the risk of the accused absconding, bail should not be granted. The APP further submitted that 1011.82 kg of Mephedrone was recovered, qualifying the case as a commercial quantity offense, thereby invoking the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Observations of the Court:
The court examined Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which places strict conditions on granting bail for commercial quantity offenses. The provision mandates that bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit a similar offense while on bail. The Supreme Court in previous cases has underscored the legislative intent behind this provision, emphasizing that drug offenses pose a severe threat to society, particularly to the youth, and warrant stringent control measures.
The court also scrutinized the severity of the allegations and the evidence presented by the prosecution. It was noted that the accused was actively involved in the manufacturing and distribution of the contraband substance, as evidenced by witness statements and documentary proof. The landlord's statement and the procurement of raw materials by the accused further solidified his connection to the crime. Additionally, the court considered the public interest aspect and the potential ramifications of releasing a key player in a large-scale drug operation.
The court further referred to judgments such as Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan, which highlighted that "reasonable grounds" require substantial, credible evidence rather than mere prima facie claims. The principle that bail should not be granted in cases where the accused's role is pivotal in facilitating the crime was reaffirmed. The court emphasized that the NDPS Act is designed to curb the proliferation of illicit drug trade, and granting bail in such cases could undermine its effectiveness.
Given the magnitude of the offense, the court found no sufficient material to establish that the accused was not guilty. Furthermore, there were no assurances that the accused would not engage in similar illegal activities if released. The court concluded that the rigorous conditions under Section 37 were not met, and therefore, bail was not warranted.
The high court further perused the NDPS Act and observed that offences prescribed under the Act" are not only a menace to a particular individual but to the entire society especially, the youth of the country. It underscored that such offences have a cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a substantial chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years. The court held that in the instant case, the case of the applicant and his role in the entire sequence of events is not as simple as has been projected during the entire course of arguments by learned counsel for the applicant. He is not merely arrested for the small quantity of contraband but has been implicated for his role as being a part of a larger drug trafficking.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court of Gujarat rejected the bail application, concluding that the applicant had failed to satisfy the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Pragnesh Pravinbhai Thummar vs. State of Gujarat
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Divyesh A. Joshi
Case No.:R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 348 of 2025
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Kishan H. Daiya
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Soham Joshi
Picture Source :
