Indore: Court rejects bail of man in fentanyl hydrochloride case

INDORE: A local court has rejected the

bail

application of one of three persons accused in manufacturing

fentanyl hydrochloride

seized by the directorate of revenue intelligence (

DRI

) in

Indore

.

Manu Gupta, one of the accused in case involving

seizure

of 10.91kg fentanyl hydrochloride, had moved a petition before special judge Krishnamurti Mishr, alleging that he was illegally detained by the DRI on September 25 and was not produced before the court till September 28.

The DRI had arrested Gupta, Sadiq Khan and a Mexican Sores Fernandes, after seizing the narcotic valued at over Rs 1.10 crore in the international market. The DRI had raided Khan’s laboratory/factory in Pologround Industrial area, his office in South Tukoganj and Gupta’s office in Amar Angan, Basant Vihar area.

Gupta’s counsel argued that following his arrest on September 25, an application was moved before the judicial magistrate court seeking his release from illegal detention. The court had asked DRI to produce Gupta before it on September 28.

The DRI in its reply had claimed that Gupta and others were booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and would be produced before a special court. The reply did not deny that he was detained on September 25, Gupta’s counsel contended.

DRI’s lawyer Chandan Airen argued before the court that Gupta was arrested on September 27 at 6.18pm and was produced before the court on September 28 at 3pm. He denied that Gupta was detained illegally.

Airen also claimed that the amount of Fentanyl Hydrochloride found on the accused was far above the commercial quantity defined under the NDPS Act.

Judge Mishr observed that NDPS Act defines 0.005 gm of Fentanyl as small quantity and 0.1 gm as commercial quantity. He referred to the case diary and said that entire action and timeline given by DRI can’t be considered as ‘untrue’.

The judge set aside the application, observing that considering the amount of drugs seized, it can’t be concluded that the accused is innocent and should be given a benefit of bail.