Manipur High Court
Harshal Desai vs The Narcotics Control Bureau (Ncb) on 12 August, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
NINGOM Digitally
by
signed
BAM NINGOMBAM
VICTORIA
VICTORI Date:
2025.08.12
A 17:37:02 +05'30' Non-reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2025
Harshal Desai, S/o Prafulbhai Desai, aged about 55 years, a
resident of A-801, Suncity Apartment, near Bhulka
Bhavan/Surya Flats, Adajan, Surat, Gujarat - 395009.
Office Address: 403, Liberty Chamber, Nanpura, Surat, Gujarat
- 395001. (Arrested on - 05/08/2023) (Presently at Manipur
Central Jail, Sajiwa, Imphal).
...Petitioner/Applicant/Accused Person
- Versus -
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Imphal through its
Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Imphal, CPWD
Quarters, Changangei, Kongba, Uchekon, 795008, Imphal
West, Manipur.
...Respondent
B EF O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioner : Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv.;
Mr. U. Augusta, Adv.
For the respondent : Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Sr.
PCCG; Ms. Niana N., Adv.
Date of hearing : 07-08-2025
Date of order : 12-8-2025
O R D E R [CAV]
[1] Heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. U. Augusta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. W. Darakeshwar,
learned Sr. PCCG assisted by Ms. Niana N., learned counsel for NCB.
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 1 of 12
[2] This is the second bail application before this Court filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in connection with NCB Crime No.
02/NCB/Imp/2023, dated 03-03-2023 u/s 8(c) & 9A to be read with Sections
21(c), 25A, 25 & 29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985.
[3] The earlier bail application being Bail Application No. 12 of 2024
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order
dated 13-12-2024 considering the seriousness of the allegation made
against the petitioner herein. However, the learned Special Court was
directed to try and dispose of the trial at the earliest and by giving liberty to
the petitioner to approach this Court again if the trial could not be concluded
within a reasonable time.
[4] It is stated that out of 12 PWs, only 2 PWs have been examined
in the last 6 months and in the circumstances, the petitioner has approached
this Court again for granting bail during the pendency of the trial. The
petitioner was arrested on 05-08-2023 in connection with the above referred
case on the disclosure of a co-accused in Gujarat and after 7 days of transit
remand, the Special Court, NDPS, Manipur remanded the petitioner to
custody on 09-08-2023 and since his arrest, the petitioner is in custody. The
present bail application is filed on the following change of circumstances: –
i) This Hon’ble High Court, has reserved the liberty of present
applicant accused to approach directly to this Hon’ble High Court,
by way of filing fresh bail application before this Hon’ble High
Court, vide order dated 13-12-2024, passed in Bail Application No.
12 of 2024.
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 2 of 12
ii) In the trial, being Special Trial (ND&PS) No. 26 of 2023, there is
no substantial progress. The charge has been framed vide order
dated 18-09-2024, but till date not even a single witness has been
fully examined. The trial is not likely to conclude in near future. The
applicant is in jail since 05-08-2023.
iii) The main accused from whose possession the contraband was
elatedly recovered has already been released on regular bail by
this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 27-02-2025 passed in Bail
Application No. 37 of 2024.
iv) The seized articles are neither narcotics nor psychotropic
substance, but the same is, only controlled drugs as observed by
this Hon’ble High Court in para 11 of the order dated 13-12-2024
passed in Bail Application No. 12 of 2024, hence, the classification
of commercial quantity etc. would not be applicable.
v) The rigor of Section 37 would not be applicable, since the present
applicant is facing charges for alleged offence punishable under
Section 25A/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 as per charges framed
by learned Special Court (ND&PS), Imphal, dated 18-09-2024.
vi) The confessional statements of the applicant or other accused, are
no admissible in evidence, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court of India in Tofan Singh V. State of Tamil Nadu.
vii) There is no incrementing material has even been found which may
even remotely connect the present applicant with the alleged
offence.
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 3 of 12
[5] It is also stated that one of the main co-accused Mrs. Nemkhohat
Guite was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27-02-2025
passed in Bail Application No. 37 of 2024 on the ground that she was
languishing in jail for almost 2 years. It is stated that out of 12 PWs cited by
the prosecution, till now, only 2 PWs have been examined and it may take
further 2 to 3 years in examining the remaining witnesses. It is stated that
the allegation against the petitioner is that the main accused
Mr. Bhadresh Kumar Patel purchased the controlled substance, i.e.,
pseudoephedrine tablets, from the petitioner and Mr. Patel and his
colleagues misbranded the drugs and transported the same to other places.
It is further stated that he is not related with the crime at all and the controlled
drugs purchased from him have been misbranded and misused by Mr. Patel
and his colleagues. It is pointed out that vide order dated 29-07-2025 passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 2622 of 2025, the main
accused Mr. Bhadresh Kumar Patel was released on bail considering the
slow progress in the trial. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, submits that without considering the merits of the case, the
petitioner herein is also entitled to be released on bail considering the slow
progress in the trial as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 29-07-2025 in SLP (Crl.) No. 2622 of 2025 where the main accused
Mr. Bhadresh Kumar Patel was released on bail and also vide order dated
27-02-2025 in Bail Application No. 37 of 2024, whereby another main
accused was also released by this Court only on the same question of slow
progress and in custody for almost 2 years. In the present case, the
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 4 of 12
petitioner herein is also in custody for more than 2 years and he is also
entitled to bail as granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of main
accused and another main accused as granted by this Court only on the
ground of slow progress in the trial and long incarceration in custody. It is
also submitted that the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is
inadmissible in evidence in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian
Evidence Act (now, BNA) and more particularly, in view of the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 26-10-2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of
2013 delivered in case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Mr. Y.
Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the following
case law: –
(a) SLP (Crl.) No. 2622 of 2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court:
“2. The petitioner is involved in an NDPS case for supplying 1500
packets of Pseudoephendrine tablets. The petitioner was arrested on
10-05-2023 and is in jail ever since then. Though, the trial has
commenced but, only one witness out of 12 witnesses has been
examined, meaning thereby that the trial is likely to take sufficient time
for completion.
3. The possession of psychotropic substance would be an offence
only if it is in contravention of the statutory provisions or the
prescribed rules.”
(b) (1984) 1 SCC 284, Bhagirathsinh S/O Mahipat Singh Judeja vs.
State of Gujarat:
“Para No. 5. …………………Nearly 3 months have rolled by from the
date of the offence. We fail to understand what the learned Judge of
the High Court desires to convey when he says that once a prima
facie case is established, it is necessary for the court to examine the
nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence was
committed. If there is no prima facie case there is no question ofBail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 5 of 12
considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case
is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not
that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but
whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for
trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour
by tampering with evidence…………….
Para No. 7. ……………………The High Court completely
overlooked the fact that it was not for it to decide whether the bail
should be granted but the application before it was for cancellation
of the bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail and the trend
today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled by a
catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to
be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The
only material considerations in such a situation are whether the
accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is
likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with
evidence. The order made by the High Court is conspicuous by its
silence on these two relevant considerations. It is for these reasons
that we consider in the interest of justice a compelling necessity to
interfere with the order made by the High Court.”
(c) (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation:
“40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the
Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts
and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time,
right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of
the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in
a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve
the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the
same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the
Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will
submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon
whenever his presence is required.
41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.),
(1978) 1 SCC 118, AIR 1978 SC 179 observed that two paramount
considerations, while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-
bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with
the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure the fair trial
of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its
impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing.
42. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an
indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every
person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 6 of 12
is: whether the same is possible in the present case.
43. There are seventeen accused persons. Statements of
witnesses run to several hundred pages and the documents on
which reliance is placed by the prosecution, are voluminous. The
trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants,
who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of
detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice
that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt,
the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms
of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should
not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no
serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released
on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do
not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too,
after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-
sheet.”
(d) (2008) 16 SCC 417, Noor Aga V. State of Punjab & Anr:
“67. The appellant contended that the purported confessions
recorded on 2.8.1997 and 4.8.1997 were provided by an officer of
the Customs Department roughly and later the same were written by
him under threat, duress and at gunpoint and had, thus, not been
voluntarily made. The High Court should have considered the
question having regard to the stand taken by the appellant. Only
because certain personal facts known to him were written, the same
by itself would not lead to the conclusion that they were free and
voluntary.
68. Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution provides that no
person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. Any confession made under Section 108 of the
Customs Act must give way to Article 20(3) wherefor there is a
conflict between the two. A retracted confessional statement may be
relied upon but a rider must be attached thereto, namely, if it is made
voluntary. The burden of proving that such a confession was made
voluntarily would, thus, be on the prosecution. It may not be
necessary for us to enter into the question as to whether the
decisions of this Court that a Customs Officer is not a police officer
should be revisited in view of the decision of this Court in Balkrishna
Chhaganlal Soni v. State of West Bengal, (1974) 3 SCC 567,
wherein it was stated :
“12. On the proved facts the gold bar is caught in the criminal
coils of Section 135, read with Sections 111 and 123, Customs
Act, as the High Court has found and little has been made out
before us to hold to the contrary.”
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 7 of 12
[6] It is submitted that considering parity with other co-accused
released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court only on the
ground of long incarceration in custody and slow progress of the trial, the
petitioner herein may also be released on bail on this ground only and he is
ready to/will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.
[7] On the other hand, Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG for the
NCB, submits that the petitioner herein, Mr. Harshal Desai, is a history-
sheeter in narcotics offences and there cannot be any parity with other
accused released on bail due to slow progress in trial. He refers to para 55
of the counter affidavit where the role of the present accused is
enumerated:-
“55. Role of Harshal Desai, Director of Ardor Drugs Pvt. Ltd.
i) That, according to the statement of the accused Bhadresh Patel (Owner
of Recover Healthcare Pvt Ltd.), Ardor Drugs used to generate bogus
bill/tax invoices in the name of Recover Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and never
actually supplied these drugs to M/s Recover Healthcare, Ahmedabad
except for the 15 lakhs Phifed tablets containing Pseudoephedrine HCI
which were supplied to him under bogus tax invoice generated for
ADMOS SR tablets. Bhadresh Patel has also stated that he used to get
commission of Rs 1 for a strip of ten tablets of Pseudoephedrine for
accepting bogus billings/tax invoices.
ii) That, during interrogation, Bhadresh Patel also accepted that GST
entries at Ardor Drugs and Recover Healthcare is tallied regarding sale
and purchase of Pseudoephedrine content drugs and Ardor Drugs Pvt.
Ltd. used to file GST every month after tallying the entries. It has been
confirmed by the account of Recover Healthcare also.
iii) That, Bhadresh Patel has also admitted in his statement that Harshal
Desai used to generate Tax Invoices in the name of Recover Healthcare
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 8 of 12
but the products mentioned in the Tax Invoices used to be supplied to
some other parties. Sometimes he used to generate false bills with the
name of some other products for supply of Pseudoephedrine based
tablets to Bhadresh Patel to sell the said Pseudoephedrine tablets. For
the said purpose Harshal Desai paid Rs. 10 lakh as commission to
Bhadresh Patel, which is reflected in the bank account statement of The
Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank of Recover Healthcare.
iv) That, Harshal Desai has admitted in his statement that he used to
generate Tax Invoices in the name of Recover Healthcare but the
products mentioned in the Tax Invoices used to be supplied to some
other parties. Sometimes he used to generate false bills with the name
of some other products for supply of Pseudoephedrine based tablets to
Bhadresh Patel to sell the said Pseudoephedrine tablets. For the said
purpose he paid Rs. 10 lakh as commission to Bhadresh Patel also
which is corroborated with the bank A/c statement.
v) That, Harshal Desai has himself admitted in his statement that he had
directed Mehul Desai to deliver the 26 cartons of Phifed tablets
containing Pseudoephedrine tablets of which bill generated in the name
of Admos SR to the party sent by Bhadresh Patel on 19.01.2023.
vi) That, there is an NDPS case vide no. 48/2020 registered in connection
with seizure of Tramadol content drugs at DRI Surat before District and
Session Spl. Court Surat. Final Complaint has been filed by DRI Surat
and presently the case is under trial.”
[8] Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG for the NCB, also refers
to the judgment reported as (2014) 16 SCC 508: Neeru Yadav v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, paras 11, 13 & 17, wherein it was held that a history-sheeter
with criminal antecedents is not entitled to bail. He further relies on the
judgment in (2021) 5 SCC 430: Union of India Vs. Prateek Shukla stating
that even if the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable to
controlled substance, however, in offence with large quantity of the
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 9 of 12
controlled substance, the Court has to consider this aspect in considering
bail under Section 439 CrPC/483 BNSS. Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr.
PCCG, also refers to the judgment reported as (1998) 6 SCC 507: PR
Despande Vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti which holds that a person cannot
approbate and reprobate in the same transaction where in the trial court it is
stated that Section 37 will be applicable and in the present bail application
Section 37 of the NDPS will not be applicable. In the judgment titled Asante
Pinket Owusu Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau passed by the Delhi High
Court, it was held that Section 436A of the CrPC will not be applicable as
the petitioner has not undergone half of the maximum sentence prescribed
under the Act. Similarly, in the bail application titled Karuthan Ponnaiya &
Anr Vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, State of Kerala, the High Court of
Kerala observed that even if Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to
controlled substance, the Court has to consider the quantity of the
contraband seized from the accused. It is submitted that the petitioner
cannot get the benefit of bail granted to the co-accused by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Court on the ground of delay in trial, as such benefit
cannot be extended to the petitioner who is a history-sheeter. It is, therefore,
prayed that the bail application be rejected.
[9] This Court has considered the materials on record, the
submissions made at the Bar and the case law cited by the learned counsel
for the parties. In the present case, the quantity of controlled substance is
huge, i.e. 533 packets of pseudoephedrine tablets which have been
misbranded and transported as normal drugs by concealing the packets.
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 10 of 12
Admittedly, the main accused, Mr. Bhadresh Kumar Patel, purchased some
of the controlled drugs from the petitioner and later on, he misbranded and
transported the packets to Myanmar via Manipur as normal drugs. Out of 12
PWs cited, only 2 PWs have been examined so far and 10 more are to be
examined. While dismissing the earlier bail application, i.e., Bail Application
No. 12 of 2024, filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 13-12-2024, the
petitioner was granted liberty to approach this Court again if the trial could
not be completed within a reasonable time. After this, only 2 witnesses have
been examined in the last 6 months and it may take considerable time to
examine the remaining 10 witnesses and also DWs, if any. While granting
bail to the main accused, Mr. Bhadresh Kumar Patel, by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the only consideration was long incarceration in custody
and slow progress and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.
In the present case also, the petitioner has been in continuous custody for
the last 2 years and the slow progress of the trial is also applicable to him.
Having two cases under NDPS Act pending in trial, it would not be proper to
treat the petitioner as a history sheeter in narcotic cases before the
conclusion of the prosecution. In the circumstances, without going into the
merits of the case and allegations made against the petitioner herein, this
Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail on slow progress and long
incarceration in custody. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. The
petitioner is to be released on bail with the following conditions:–
i) The accused/petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing PR
bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) only with 1 (one) surety
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 11 of 12
(local Government Employee of the State of Manipur) of the likeamount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court, NDPS,
Manipur.
ii) The accused/petitioner should co-operate with the prosecution
and he should make himself available for appearance before the
Special Judge, NDPS, Manipur in the trial as and when required.
iii) The accused/petitioner should not leave the State of Manipur
without prior permission of the learned Special Court, NDPS,
Manipur.
It is further made clear that if the accused/petitioner violates any
of the conditions given hereinabove, the respondent is at liberty to approach
this Court for modification or cancellation of this order.
[10] Send a copy of this order to the learned Special Judge, NDPS,
Manipur at Lamphelpat, Imphal for information.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Victoria
Bail Appln. No. 14 of 2025 Page 12 of 12