1. This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 1 of 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-C/22-C, 8-C/21, 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in the matter.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. The narcotic contraband Alprazolam tablets were not seized from active and immediate possession of the applicant. She is implicated in the alleged offence merely for the reason that she is Proprietor of M/s SSS Enterprises. Allegedly, Rajendra Singh was given the Alprazolam tablets by Amit Baghel. However, tracing the batch number printed on the tablets, M/s Airin Pharmaceutical, the Licencee and Manufacturer of Alprazolam tablets was inquired and it was revealed that Airin Pharamaceutial had sold the Alprazolam tables to M/s S.S.S. Enterprises. Initially, the investigation proceeded against applicant's husband, namely, Sebal Kumar Mati. The final report was submitted against Sebal Kumar Mati stating that he is responsible for selling of Alprazolam tables on behalf of M/s S.S.S. Enterprises to Amit Babhel. However, later, the applicant is implicated in the alleged offence for the reason that she is Proprietor of the M/s S.S.S. Enterprises. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the applicant. The applicant was not in-charge and responsible for conduct of the business of the Firm- M/s S.S.S. Enterprises, rather, entire business was transacted by her husband Sebal Kumar Mati. The applicant has been working as a Professor at various educational institutions. Learned counsel further submits that applicant enjoys good character and social standing. The investigation is almost complete. She co-operated in the investigation and recorded her statement on 10/05/2024. Further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed in the matter. Jail incarceration on false accusation would cause hardship to the applicant and her family. She is ready to cooperate in further investigation and trial. Therefore, applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

3. 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. The applicant is Proprietor of the firm - M/s S..S.S. Enterprises, therefore, in view of the provision contained under section 38 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is responsible for further unauthorized sale of narcotic contraband -Alprazolam tables. Her complicity in the alleged offence is prima-facie made out. The present 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.

4. 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 Sonali Mani (applicant) is licencee and proprietor of M/s S.S.S. Enterprises.

Accordingly, the prosecution is proposed against the applicant Sonali Mati. She is apprehending arrest in the matter.

5. Section 38 of the NDPS Act provides as under :

          8. Offences by companies.-

          (1) Where an offence under Chapter [V] has been committed by a company, every Person, who, at the time the offence was committed was in incharge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

          Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to Prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under Chapter IV has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the Part of, any director, manager/ secretary, or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary of other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

          Explanation-For the purposes of this section,-

          (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

          (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

6. The applicant will be required to prove that the alleged offence was committed without her knowledge or she had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence to show her innocence, which will be considered after evidence on merit in the trial. The complicity of the applicant in purchasing the Alprazolam tables by her firm M/s S.S.S. Enterprises and further selling it through her husband Sebal Kumar Mati (co-accused) unauthorisedly to Amit Baghel, is prima-facie revealed by the Investigation.

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

          37. 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

8. Since the complicity of the applicant 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 anticipatory bail is made out.

9. Consequently, present anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.