Sonali Mati vs Union Of India

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 1/2024 registered at Police Station - Union of India, Department of Custom Duty, through Customs Department, Customs Commissionerate, District - Indore (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 8/21-C of the NDPS Act. The applicant is in detention since 24.03.2026.

As per the accusation on case diary, Rajendra Singh was found transporting Alprazolam tables, total quantity 5.08 kg ( 46,200 tables) on 18/03/2024. Rajendra Singh informed that Amit Baghel had provided the Alprazolam tables. Tracing the batch numbers on strip of Alprazolam table, the licencee M/s Airin Pharmaceutical was called for investigation.

The Airin Pharmaceutical informed that they have sold the Alprazolam tablets to M/s S.S.S. Enterprises. It was revealed that applicant is husband of the licencee and proprietor of M/s S.S.S. Enterprises. in fact, he is operating the illegal trade of Alprazolam tablets which were sold to the person who is not having any drug license. Accordingly, applicant was arrested on 24.03.2025. She is in custody ever since.

Learned Counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter as the husband of the applicant who is also an accused in the matter has admitted that he is running the business of sole proprietorship firm which is in the name of his wife i.e. the present applicant and applicant is working as Assistant Professor. The narcotic contraband Alprazolam tablets were not seized from active and immediate possession of the applicant. Allegedly, Rajendra Singh was given the Alprazolam tablets by Amit Baghel. Applicant is implicated merely for the reason that she is the proprietor of firm which has received the Alprazolem tablet of relevant Batch no. as informed by the manufacturer. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the applicant. The final report has been submitted on submission of investigation. Applicant has clean past, with family roots, property and employment. There is no history of evading process of law. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the applicant. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and the dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in further trial.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the bail application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation reveals complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. The Alprazolam tables manufactured by Licencee M/s Airin Pharmaceutical were sold to other licencee M/s S.S.S. Enterprises operated by the husband in name of his wife i.e. the present applicant. Her complicity in the alleged offence is prima-facie made out. The application is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant.

I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at the Bar and perused the material available on the case diary.

Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act provides as under :

Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity, shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

Since the prima facie complicity of the applicant who is Proprietor of the firm in the alleged offence is revealed by the investigation, the interdict contained under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act would operate against the applicant, therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out. The application for bail filed by the Sebal Kumar Mati - husband of applicant was also rejected vide order dated 21.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 53913/2025 by this Court.

Consequently, present bail application is dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.