Gudipati Subrahmanyam vs Union Of India And Anr on 11 August, 2025

0
1

Bombay High Court

Gudipati Subrahmanyam vs Union Of India And Anr on 11 August, 2025

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2025:BHC-AS:34422

                                                                                          -BA-1817-2025.DOC

                                                                                               Arun Sankpal



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1817 OF 2025




                        Gudipati Subrahmanyam                                                ..Applicant
                             Versus
                        Union of India & Anr                                           ...Respondents

                        Mr. Ayaz Khan, with Dilip Mishra, Zehra charania and Mallika
                               Sharma, for the Applicant.
                        Mr. J.B. Mishra, with Abhishek R. Mishra & ROpesh Dubey, for
                               Respondent No.1.
                        Mr. N.B. Patil, APP, for Respondent No.2-State.

                                                            CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                            DATED :    11th AUGUST 2025


                        ORDER:

1. The Applicant, who is arraigned in NDPS Special Case No.1506 of

2023, arising out of CR No.F. No. CIU/INV-23/2022-23/ACC(G)/E-office

and F. No GEN/ INV/ Misc/ 229/2023-CIU-O/o COMMR-CUS-GEN-

Zone-III-Mumbai, registered at the instance of SIIB, Export, for the

offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2025.08.11
18:46:10 +0530
Act, 1985″) has preferred this Application to enlarge him on bail.

1/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

2. In fact, this is the second Application for bail. The first

Application, being BA No. 4210 of 2023, preferred by the Applicant

came to be rejected by an order dated 17th May 2024.

3. The Applicant challenged the aforesaid order before the Supreme

Court in SLP No. S-12001 of 2024. By an order dated 9 th September

2024, the said SLP came to be dismissed as withdrawn.

4. The gravamen of indictment against the Applicant (A1) is that he

was the Chief Operating Officer of M/s First Wealth Solution (First

Wealth), the consignor. The Applicant had placed the purchase order

with M/s Safe Foundation Pvt Ltd to procure Tramadol Hydrochloride

with brand name, ‘Tamol-X’. The Applicant forged the documents and

invoices raised by M/s. Safe Formulation Pvt. Ltd. under which the said

drug was supplied for export purpose only, to change the description

from Tramdol Hydrochloride to Calcium Carbonate.

5. On the basis of the intelligence input, one export consignment

covered under Shipping Bill No. 7996704 dated 23 rd February 2023 of

M/s First Wealth Solution containing 10.5 lakhs tablets was intercepted

by the Central Intelligence Unit (CIU) Air Cargo Complex, Sahar (ACC).

In the search 9,99,500 tablets of Tamol-X were found, though the

description on each packets was that of calcium carbonate. The goods

were thus found to be misdeclared in terms of quantity and description.

2/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

Upon analysis, the test turned out positive for Tramadol, a psychotropic

substance.

6. Mr. Ayaz Khan, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted

that since this Court has rejected the first Application for bail on merits,

the Applicant may not urge the ground of inapplicability of the

provisions contained in Rule 58 of the NDPS Rules. However, on the

ground of prolonged period of incarceration of the Applicant with a very

bleak chance of commencement of trial in near future, the Applicant

deserves to be enlarged on bail.

7. Mr. Khan urged that the Applicant has been in custody since 11 th

March 2023. Out of the nine accused, two of the accused have been

granted interim pre-arrest bail. Their Applications are yet to be decided

finally. The prosecution has not proceeded against Accused No. 9, who

has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. It is likely that the

prosecution may file supplementary complaint against the accused who

are enlarged on pre-arrest bail or who are on interim bail. The charge

has yet not been framed. The prosecution has cited 88 witnesses. It is

also likely that, post filing of the supplementary complaint, the

prosecution may propose to examine more witnesses.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is extremely unlikely that the

trial can even commence, much less conclude, within a reasonable

3/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

period. Such prolonged period of incarceration without the prospect of

trial impinges upon the right to life of the accused, submitted Mr. Khan.

9. Mr. Khan invited attention of the Court to an order passed by this

Court in BA No. 4612 of 2024, whereby this Court released, Sangala

Sridhar Reddy (A7)- a co-accused, by also taking into account the fact

that he was incarcerated for over 22 months. The Applicant is in custody

for almost 30 months. Therefore, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged

on bail.

10. To buttress these submissions, Mr. Khan placed reliance on the

orders of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rafat Ali & Anr Vs The State

of Assam,1 Mukesh Yadav Vs The State of Assam,2 Mohammad Roshan Vs

Union of India,3 Anmol Singh Vs State of Punjab4 and Hiteshbhai

Dhirubhai Olakiya Vs The State of Gujarat.5

11. In opposition to this, Mr. Mishra, the learned Special PP for

Respondent No.1, submitted that this Court has rejected the bail

Application of the Applicant by recording elaborate reasons. The

Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the said order. There is no

significant change in the circumstances which would warrant afresh

consideration of the prayer for bail. Mr. Mishra would further urge that

1 SLP (Cri) No. 2690 of 2025 decided on 15 th April 2025.
2 Criminal Appeal No. 1966 of 2025, decided on 15 th April 2025
3 SLP (Cri) No. 4517 of 2025, decided on 2nd May 2025.
4 SLP (Cri) No. 5568 of 2025, decided on 26th May 2025.
5 SLP (Cri) No. 4947 of 2025, decided on 24th July 2025.
4/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation and since the

interdict contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 operates with

full force, the Applicant cannot be enlarged on bail on the count of long

period of incarceration alone.

12. The Trial could not be commenced as the co-accused have been

adopting dilatory tactics. The prosecution is not responsible for the

delay. Thus, to address the concern of pro-longed period of

incarceration, the Court may make the trial time-bound, urged Mr.

Mishra.

13. I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions.

Since this Court has rejected the first bail Application by recording

elaborate reasons and the Applicant did not succeed before the Supreme

Court, there is no reason to take a different view on the plea for bail on

the merits of the case.

14. On the aspect of entitlement for bail on the count of prolonged

period of incarceration, the legal position is fairly crystallized. A pro-

longed period of incarceration without a realistic prospect of conclusion

of the trial, impairs the right of the accused to speedy trial which is a

facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution

of India. It is well recognized that the stringent restrictions in the matter

of grant of bail under the Special enactments like NDPS Act, Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, Maharashtra Control of Organized

5/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

Crime Act 1999, etc proceed on the premise that the trial would be

concluded within a reasonable period. In a case where the accused is

incarcerated for an inordinately long period as an under-trial prisoner,

the statutory restrictions in the matter of bail do not preclude the

Constitutional Courts from releasing the accused on bail. In such

situations, it is held that, the statutory restrictions in the matter of grant

of bail melt down and the conditional liberty overrides the statutory

limitations.

15. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs K.A.

Najeeb,6 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of
statutory restrictions like Section 43D(5) of UAPA
perse does not oust the ability of Constitutional
Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III
of Page 11 the Constitution. Indeed, both the
restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers
exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be
well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of
proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the
legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours
of such provisions will melt down where there is no
likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration
already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of
the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would

6 AIR 2021 SC 713.

6/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

safeguard against the possibility of provisions like
Section 43 D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole
metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of
constitutional right to speedy trial.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. In the case of Rabi Prakash Vs The State of Odisha7 wherein the

accused therein was in custody of more than three and half years, on

the accusation of having committed the offences punishable under

Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act 1985, the Supreme Court observed

as under:

“3. We are informed that the trial has commenced
but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been
examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take
some more time.

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the
respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the
1st condition stands complied with. So far as the
2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to
whether there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not
be formed at this stage when he has already spent
more than three and a half years in custody. The
prolonged incarceration, generally militates against
the most precious fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a
situation, the conditional liberty must override the

7 SLP (Cri) No. 4169 of 2023, decided on 13th July 2023.

7/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

statutory embargo created under Section 37(1) (b)

(ii) of the NDPS Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. In Mohd Muslim Alias Hussain Vs State (NCT of Delhi), 8 the

Supreme Court reiterated that the grant of bail on the ground of undue

delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS

Act given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences

under the NDPS Act too. The laws which impose stringent conditions for

grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not

concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is

immeasurable.

18. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, indeed the gravamen of

accusation against the Applicant is serious. That consideration weighed

with this Court in rejecting the Application for bail, at the initial stage,

by adopting the approach delineated by the Supreme Court in the case

of K.A. Najeeb (Supra). However, after a period of almost 30 months of

the arrest of the Applicant and remote possibiliy of even framing the

charge, in the immediate future, the consideration of gravity of the

accusation cannot be pressed into service with equal force. At this stage,

the constitutional right of the accused to have a speedy trial, which

stands on a higher pedestal than a statutory limitation, deserves due

weight.

8 (2023) 3 SCR 697.

8/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

19. In circumstances of the case, the prospect of the conclusion of the

trial within a reasonable period appears extremely bleak. As noted

above, the Applications for pre-arrest bail of the two of the co-accused

are, stated to be, yet to be finally decided. The prosecution has not

proceeded against an accused who has been enlarged on pre-arrest bail.

It does not appear that steps have been taken to conclude further

investigation, if any, qua the accused who have been granted pre-arrest

bail, or who are still on interim bail. Though a period of almost 30

months has elapsed, even the charge has not been framed. These hard

facts give heft to the submission of Mr. Khan that it is extremely unlikely

that the trial can commence, much less conclude, within a reasonable

period.

20. Since the prosecution has cited, as of now, as many as 88

witnesses, even if the trial commences within a couple of months from

today, which in itself seems very unlikely, the trial is not likely to

conclude in a reasonably forceable future. Having regard to the nature

of the accusation, the circumstances of the case, and number of accused,

the prosecution may be required to examine a sizable number of

witnesses, even if all the cited witnesses are not examined.

21. In this backdrop, I am of the considered view that, in the facts of

this case, the statutory restrictions in the matter of grant of bail do melt

down and the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of

9/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

long period of incarceration, without a realistic prospect of the

conclusion of the trial.

22. Hence, the following order:

:ORDER:

i]         The bail application stands allowed.

ii]        The applicant Gudipati Subrahmanyam be released on bail in

NDPS Special Case No.1506 of 2023, arising out of C.R. No.F. No.

CIU/INV-23/2022-23/ACC(G)/E-office and F. No GEN/ INV/ Misc/

229/2023-CIU-O/o COMMR-CUS-GEN-Zone-III-Mumbai, registered at

the instance of SIIB, Export, on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) with one or two sureties in the like amount to

the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.

iii] The applicant shall mark his presence at the Central Intelligence

Unit, between 10.00 am. to 12.00 noon, on first Monday of every

month, for the period of three years or till conclusion of the trial,

whichever is earlier.

iv] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so

as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any police

officer.

v] On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact

10/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::

-BA-1817-2025.DOC

number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall

keep him updated, in case there is any change.

vi] The applicant shall surrender his passport before the Special

Court, if not already surrendered. The applicant shall not leave India

without prior permission of the learned Special Judge.

vii] The Applicant shall not indulge in any activity like the activities

for which he has been arraigned in this case.

viii] The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the

jurisdictional Court.

ix] By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations

made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of the

entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of

opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and the co-accused

and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations

made hereinabove.

Application disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

11/11

::: Uploaded on – 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:32:12 :::



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here