[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Imran Raish Ahmad Musha Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/1762/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1762
                                                  of 2026

                       ==========================================================
                                                 IMRAN RAISH AHMAD MUSHA PATEL
                                                              Versus
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       ADILHUSHAIN M SAIYED(9723) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                          Date : 21/04/2026

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section

482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for

short, 'BNSS'), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail

in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being

C.R.II No.33 of 2018 registered with the Bharuch (Rural)

Police Station, District : Bharuch for the offences punishable

under Sections 8(C), 18(C), 20(C), 21(C), 23(C), 25, 29, 60(1),

60(2) and 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives

service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent

- State.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

3. Learned advocate Mr. Nirad D. Buch for learned

advocate Mr. Adilhushain M. Saiyed for the applicant has

mainly argued that the applicant has been wrongly

introduced in the case solely on the basis of the statements

of accused Nos.3 and 4; and that the statement of co-accused

recorded before the police are inadmissible in evidence in

view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act; and

that the present case consists of Ayurvedic tablets knows as

'Kamini Vidravan Ras', which are manufactured by Multani

Pharmaceutical Ltd., a licensed manufacturer duly authorised

by the Department of AYUSH and therefore, no offence under

the N.D.P.S. Act is made out against the applicant; and that

moreover, on perusal of the FSL report and the investigation

papers, it is evident that no prohibited narcotic substance

under the NDPS Act has been detected; and that as per Schedule-E(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules and the

Ayurvedic Formulary of India (Part-III, First Edition), 'Kamini

Vidravan Ras' is a legally manufactured Ayurvedic medicine

containing permitted ingredients; and that even as per the

charge-sheet, the sender of the alleged parcel is shown as

one 'M.S. Patel'; and that the applicant's name, address or

identity does not appear anywhere in the parcel receipt or

custom's documents; and that the applicant neither resides at

the said address nor has any connection with the said

persons; and that the applicant has been falsely implicated

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

merely on the basis of a vague and unsubstantiated

statement of a co-accused and therefore, the present applicant

has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned

FIR; and that the allegations stated in the FIR do not

disclose a clear, definite or credible factual foundation to

infer against the present applicant. It is submitted that this

application may be allowed.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

has vehemently opposed this application. It is submitted that

the applicant is directly involved in the offence in question;

and that Section 8(C) of the NDPS Act prohibits export inter

States or export from India of any Narcotic Drug or

Psychotropic Substance; and that from the FLS report, it

could be seen that there was morphine found in the pills of medicines and material containing a Narcotic or Psychotropic

Substance was attempted to be sent out of the country at

the address of the applicant and therefore, prima facie, the

offence appears to be have been committed; and that the

cousin brother of the applicant has clearly given a statement

that the said substance was to be sent to the present

applicant who is residing at Canada and the address of the

present applicant was stated in the parcel that was sent

through the Post Office, Lal Bazar, Bharuch and therefore, it

can be clearly established that the applicant has a direct role

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

in the offence in question, in view of the fact that the

statement of the co-accused is sufficient material to lead in

the investigation and from the investigation carried out

against the other accused clearly indicates that there is an

involvement of the present applicant; and that the statement

of the co-accused is, who happens to be the brother of the

applicant is required to be considered, in view of the fact

that the investigation of the offence in question is still going

on. It is submitted that the present application is required to

be rejected.

5.1 Having heard learned advocates for the respective

parties and having gone through the material produced on

record, including the police papers as well as statement of

the co-accused, this Court finds that the co-accused has stated that the said material was to be supplied to the

present applicant; and that the investigation against the

applicant is still going on; and that considering the statement

of the co-accused, being relevant, which provides a lead to

further investigation the offence, this Court is aware that the

evidentiary value of the statement of the co-accused is none,

however, during the investigation, the statement given by the

co-accused is helpful to the investigating agency for the

purpose of ascertaining that the investigation is proceeding in

right direction or not; and that it also states that the other

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

accused had booked the parcel at the Post Office for

exporting the same at the address of the applicant at

Canada under the label of 'Hajmola Candy'. Therefore, prima

facie, the prosecution has material against the applicant that

he is involved in the trafficking of the product by labelling it

as 'Hajmola Candy'; and that the report tendered by the

Investigating Officer indicates that the presence of Anhydrous

Morphine is found from the 'Kamini Vidravan Ras' during the

FSL examination.

5.2 With regard to the submissions of the learned

advocate for the applicant that the applicant is residing at

Canada; and that 'Kamini Vidravan Ras' is a medicinal

product, which is purchased or sold or imported or exported

freely and over the counter; and that there is no justification as to why the accused were exporting the same under the

label of 'Hajmola Candy' is concerned, from the evidence and

material placed on record clearly indicate that commercial

quantity of 'Kamini Vidravan Ras', labelling under the

'Hajmola Candy', was attempted to be sent to Canada at the

address of the applicant through Post Department and there

is no explanation qua the same is given by the present

applicant.

5.3 In the aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

necessary. When serious offences are disclosed and

involvement of an accused prima facie established then, the

Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest

bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. This

Court is conscious with the safeguards provided under Section

482 of the BNSS and the concept of personal liberty. But

herein, I am of the considered of view that, arrest is part of

the process of investigation and intended to secure several

purposes. In which the accused may provide information,

during the the discovery of material facts and to relevant

information.

5.4 In such circumstances, when investigation is going

on, if anticipatory bail is granted at this stage, it may

hamper the investigation and to collect the material in the more information, and find out the involvements of another

person custodial interrogation is also necessary, therefore,

keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil

Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187, (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 and (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held held as follows :

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The privilege of the prearrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy".

Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investigations, held investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation"

5.5 Further, in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs

The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 as

under :

"19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, italso presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice.

                                                    The     tight     rope       we     must        walk     lies     in
                                                    striking      a    balance         between         safeguarding
                                                    individual        rights      and         protecting        public

interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."

5.6 Further, keeping in mind Law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694. Herein, I have gone through the material available against the accused very carefully and it appears

that herein, no complaint has been made with view to

humiliating or tarnish the image of the present applicant.

Even in Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another ,

reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379, Honourable Supreme Court

pleased to hold :

"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offenceare required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."

6. In the above facts and circumstances and

considering the observations on the legal aspect of the

matter, this Court has absolutely no doubt that if the

applicant is equipped with such an order before he is

interrogated by the investigating agency, it would greatly

harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of

unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1762/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

7. Having considered nature and seriousness of the

charge, prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of