JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner herein has been arrested and is in custody in connection with Complaint No.1/2020 registered at the office of the Central Bureau of Narcotics (hereinafter referred to as CBN) at Chittorgarh for the offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. He has filed the instant application under Section 439 CrPC with a prayer to release him on bail. 2. At the outset, it may be stated that the petitioner is a medical professional, having qualification of M.D. (Psychiatry). Looking to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that he was suffering from ailments, this court vide order dated 31.03.2020 directed medical examination of the petitioner through a Government Medical Officer. In furtherance of this direction, the report of the petitioner’s medical examination was received. Finding that the petitioner was suffering from neurological ailments, to be specific, spinal chord issues, this court granted interim bail to the petitioner on medical grounds vide order dated 09.04.2020, which has been extended from time to time. While extending the interim bail of the petitioner, it was observed in order dated 20.07.2020 that the petitioner has been advised spinal surgery at the Fortis Hospital. The bail application was heard on merits on 21.09.2021. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the bail application are noted hereinbelow : 4. The petitioner operates two medical institutions in the name of Jyani Kalawati Hospital, one at Birbal Chowk, Sri Ganganagar and the other at Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Mishra, Inspector, CBN, claims to have received an information on 21.02.2020 that the petitioner was indulging in illegal transactions of medicinal drugs having narcotic/psychotropic content and if the inspection of the Jyani Kalawati Hospitals at Sri Ganganagar and Mandi Dabwali was undertaken, huge irregularities could be found. Accordingly, two teams of CBN officials were constituted, one for the search of Jyani Kalawati Hospital, Mandi Dabwali (Punjab & Haryana) and the other for the search of Jyani Kalawati Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. Both the teams carried out search operations and inspected the premises. The petitioner was found present at Jyani Kalawati Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. Psychotropic drugs were found in the stock at both the medical institutions, the inventory whereof was prepared. Both the teams carried out search operations and inspected the premises. The petitioner was found present at Jyani Kalawati Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. Psychotropic drugs were found in the stock at both the medical institutions, the inventory whereof was prepared. During the course of investigation, details regarding procurement of the drugs in question were sought for and it came to light that all the medicinal preparations had been lawfully procured by the hospitals from approved sources. In the complaint, the Investigating Officer has catalogued the list of drugs seized/used at the two hospitals from the year 2018 to 2020 and at the end of each inventory, a categoric statement has been made that the sale of medicines to the petitioner’s institutions was lawful and did not indicate any irregularity. However, after concluding investigation, a complaint came to be filed against the petitioner in the competent court with the allegation that records of previous three years of both the hospitals were checked and audited. Certain irregularities were allegedly noticed in maintenance of records. A pertinent allegation was made that Form No.7 prescribed under Rule 67-A of the NDPS Rules was not maintained strictly in accordance with the requirement of the statute. Para No.14 of the complaint is relevant to the controversy and is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- ^^14- ;g fd vkjksih ds laca/k esa tkudkjh gsrq Jheku~ vfrfjDr vkS"kf/k fu;a=d] Jhxaxkuxj dks fnukad 03-03-2020 dks fy[ks x;s ftlds tokc esa Jh jkeiky] nok fu;a=d vf/kdkjh@tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk crk;k fd dykorh gkWLihVy] 47 lh CykWd chjcy pkSd] Jhxaxkuxj dh nks ckj f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj fnukad 11-03-2018 ,oa fnukad 13-10-2019 dks tkpa dh xbZ FkhA tkap esa MkW /kesZnz flag T;k.kh] ,e-Mh- lkbZdsfVªLV }kjk fofHkUu 'kSM;wy ,p] ,p&1 ,oe~ vU; vkS"kf/k;ka laxzfgr ik;h xbZA fnukad 13-10-2019 dks ekSds ij tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk pkgs tkus ij vf/kfu;e ds 'kSM;wy ^^ds** ds rgr la/kkfjr lIykbZ jftLVj ekSds ij miyC/k ugha djok ik;sA ysfdu fnukad 27-12-2019 dks 'kSM;wy ^^ds** ds rgr la/kkfjr lIykbZ jftLVj v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ dks fnukad dks izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA ,oa blds vfrfjDr crk;k fd izdj.k esa orZeku esa tkap yfEcr gS o tkap iw.kZ dj vkidks lwpuk izsf"kr dj nh tk;sxhA i= o tokc 'kkfey ifjokn gSA^^ 5. In para Nos.26 to 30 of the complaint, it was noted that enquiry was made regarding authenticity of the two institutions, but no reply was received from the concerned departments in Rajasthan. However, the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Haryana responded that the de-addiction center being operated at the Jyani Kalawati Hospital, Mandi Dabwali was duly authorized and registered with the department. The Investigating Officer concluded in para No.32 of the complaint that the petitioner failed to maintain the requisite information in the prescribed proforma, which amounted to an illegality because as per Rule 67-A of the NDPS Rules, the petitioner was required to maintain complete details of purchase, sale and use of the drugs having narcotic and psychotropic contents for a period of two years, but the petitioner failed to maintain this record in a complete manner/in the prescribed proforma and thus, he was liable to be prosecuted for grave offences. The relevant paras Nos.32 and 33 of the complaint are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :- ^^32- ;g fd nkSjkus dk;Zokgh T;kuh dyokrh gkWLihVy] chjcy pkSd] Jhxaxkuxj ,oa T;kuh dyokrh gkWLihVy] eaMh Mcokyh ls tIr fd;s x;s 4 jftLVj fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS %& Ø-la- jftLVj dk fooj.k jftLVj esa dqy i`"B jftLVj esa i`"B dh la[;k ftlesa bUnzkt gS 1 gjk jftLVj 1 ls 400 rd 1 ls 156 rd 2 dkyl esV dk jftLVj 1 ls 203 rd 1 ls 69 ,oa 180 ls 203 rd 3 'kadj LVkd jftLVj 1 ls 145 rd 1 ls 25 4 uhyxxu yky jftLVj 1 ls 601 rd 1 ls 79 ;g fd mijksDr jftLVªjh esa fd;s x;s bUnzkt ls ;g Loeso Li"V gS fd vkjksih /kesUnz T;kuh dk mís'; fu;e ds fo:) gksdj fu;ekuqlkj izLrkfor izk:i esa lwpuk ladfyr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA tks fd fu;e fo:) gksdj ltk ;ksX; gSA jftLVj 'kkfey ifjokn gSA 33- ;g fd fu;e 67 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ,.M :y 1985 esa lafgr fn'kk funsZ'k ds vuqlkj vkjksih /kesUnz T;kuh dks ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ds ?kVd dh nokbZ;ksa dks [kjhn ,oa fcØh@miHkksx ds fy, de ls de nks lky dk nLrkost ,oa lwpuk izLrkfor izk:i esa lqjf{kr j[kuk fu;ekuqlkj vko';d Fkk ysfdu vU;Fkk mís'; ls buds }kjk nks lky dk lwpuk leqfpr izk:i esa lqjf{kr ugha j[kuk ,d t?kU; vijk/k gSA^^ 6. The bail application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar by the order dated 25.02.2020, whereupon the petitioner has approached this court by way of this application under Section 439 CrPC. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Vineet Jain, representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the case set up by the Central Bureau of Narcotics in the complaint is totally cooked up and the allegations made therein are unsubstantiated. He submitted that the malafide intention of the Central Bureau of Narcotics officials is writ large on the face of the record because they even went to the extent of making a rampant search in the duly authorized medical institution of the petitioner in Mandi Dabwali, which is beyond there jurisdiction. He urged that as a matter of fact, the petitioner is being prosecuted on hypertechnical grounds. There is no dispute regarding the petitioner being a qualified psychiatrist, who is operating two duly authorized institutions at Sri Ganganagar and Mandi Dabwali, Haryana. Both the institutions were inspected and it has been confirmed that all the medicines, which were procured, used and administered therein had been lawfully purchased from authorized dealers/manufacturers. Mr. Jain urged that the record of use/administration of the medicines is required to be maintained in a register prescribed under Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that the details which are entered in this register are at par with the details which are required to be filled in the Form No.7 prescribed under the NDPS Rules. He contended that if at all any irregularity had been observed in the maintenance of record at any of the institutions, then too the infringement, if any, would be punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He further urged that even if it is presumed that the information required to be stored and saved in the Form No.7 was not maintained for a period of two years, the petitioner cannot be imputed any mens rea because unquestionably the very same information was entered in the register maintained under Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The said register was provided to the Bureau officials. The said register was provided to the Bureau officials. His further contention was that even if the allegations set out in the complaint are accepted to be true on the face of the record, there is no foundation for assuming that the petitioner violated the provisions of the NDPS Act or the Rules framed thereunder. He contended that even if the allegations set out in the complaint are accepted to be true on the face of the record, the infringement, if any, would be covered by Rule 65A of the NDPS Rules and offence so committed would be punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He urged that even if it is assumed for the argument’s sake that the Form No.7 prescribed under the NDPS Rules was not maintained for a period of two years, the case of the petitioner would not be covered under any clause of Section 37 of the NDPS Act providing riders on bail and hence also, the petitioner, who is suffering from various serious ailments is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. N.K. Rai vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He contended that the record was not maintained and preserved in the prescribed proforma in Form No.7 for a period of two years in the two institutions being operated by the petitioner and thus, there is a clear violation of Rule 67A of the NDPS Rules, which is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of 10 years. To support his contention, Mr. Rai has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar [Criminal Appeal No.1512/2018 decided on 03.12.2018]. He, thus, implored the court to dismiss the instant bail application. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. The respondents have themselves admitted that the petitioner is a duly qualified psychiatrist. The credentials of the petitioner have been placed on record, as per which, he holds Masters degree in Psychiatry. The fact regarding the two institutions of the petitioner, where Drug De-addiction Centers are being operated, being duly authorized by the concerned departments, has not been disputed in the complaint filed by the respondents. The credentials of the petitioner have been placed on record, as per which, he holds Masters degree in Psychiatry. The fact regarding the two institutions of the petitioner, where Drug De-addiction Centers are being operated, being duly authorized by the concerned departments, has not been disputed in the complaint filed by the respondents. Thus, the controversy, which this court is called upon to decide is in a very narrow compass, i.e. (1) whether the infringements alleged are covered under the NDPS Act or that it is a case of violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder simplicitor; (2) whether the petitioner had any mens rea to commit the offences alleged; (3) If at all the case as set up in the complaint is accepted, the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply or not. 9. As has been noted above, the fact regarding the petitioner being a qualified Psychiatrist and the two hospitals being duly registered with the competent authorities is not in dispute. Whilst the respondents have set up a case that the petitioner infringed Rule 67A of the NDPS Rules, the petitioner has set up a case that violation, if any, would be of Rule 65-A of the NDPS Rules and would be punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder, for which, a complaint would have to be filed in the court of the competent Magistrate. The relevant Rules 65-A, 67-A, Form No.7 of the NDPS Rules and Schedule K appended to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are quoted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference : “65A. Sale, purchase, consumption or use of psychotropic substances.-No person shall sell, purchase, consume or use any psychotropic substance except in accordance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 Provided that sale, purchase, consumption or use of a psychotropic substance specified in Schedule I shall be only for the purposes mentioned in Chapter VIIA. Sale, purchase, consumption or use of psychotropic substances.-No person shall sell, purchase, consume or use any psychotropic substance except in accordance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 Provided that sale, purchase, consumption or use of a psychotropic substance specified in Schedule I shall be only for the purposes mentioned in Chapter VIIA. 67-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of these rules- (a) a narcotic drug and psychotropic substance may be used for- (i) scientific requirement including analytical requirements of any Government laboratory or any research institution in India or abroad; (ii) very limited medical requirements of a foreigner by a duly authorised person of a hospital or any other establishment of the Government especially approved by that Government; (iii) the purpose of de-addiction of drug addicts by Government or local body or by an approved charity or voluntary organisation or by such other institution as may be approved by the Central Government. or the authority exercising the powers under subclause (iv) of clause (a) (iv) the purpose of restraining or immobilising wild animals by or under the authority of the Government and approved by that Government. (b) persons performing medical or scientific functions or the authority exercising the powers under sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) shall keep records concerning the acquisition of the substance and the details of their use in Form 7 of these rules and such records are to be preserved for at least two years alter their (sic); (c) a narcotic drug and psychohopic substance may be supplied or dispensed for use to a foreigrer Pursuant to medical Pres only from the authorised licensed pharmacists or other authorised retail distributors designated by authorities responsible for public health. FORM NO. 7 (See rules 35,53,64 and 67 A) 1. Name of the laboratory/ research institution/ hospital/ dispensary/ person/ authority] 2. Address 3. Name of the Drug 4. From whom the drug was obtained/ purchased 5. Quantity obtained / purchased 6. Date on which obtained/purchased Details of Use: Sl. No. Date Quantity consumed Purpose Signature of the user (1) This form shall be kept for 2 years from the last date of consumption. (2) This shall be produced for verification by any of the officers empowered under section 41 or 42 of the Narcotic Drugs-and psychotropic Substances Act or any officer-in-charge of a police station. No. Date Quantity consumed Purpose Signature of the user (1) This form shall be kept for 2 years from the last date of consumption. (2) This shall be produced for verification by any of the officers empowered under section 41 or 42 of the Narcotic Drugs-and psychotropic Substances Act or any officer-in-charge of a police station. Schedule K (See rule 123) Class of drugs Extent and Conditions of Exemptions 1. Drugs falling under clause (b)(i) of section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, not intended for medicinal use. All the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the rules thereunder, subject to the conditions that the drug is not sold for medicinal use or for use in the manufacture of medicines and that each container is labeled conspicuously with the words “NOT FOR MEDICINAL USE”. [2A. Quinine and other antimalarial drugs.] Persons selling the drugs by retail under arrangements made by State Government for sale and distribution of the drugs will be exempted from the requirement to take out licences for retail sale under clause (c)3 of Section 18 of the Act. [5. Drugs supplied by a registered medical practitioner to his own patient or any drug specified in Schedule C supplied by a registered medical practitioner at the request of another such practitioner if it is specially prepared with reference to the condition and for the use of an individual patient provided the registered medical practitioner is not (a) keeping an open shop or (b) selling across the counter or (c) engaged in the importation, manufacture, distribution or sale of drugs in India to a degree which render him liable to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the rules thereunder.] All the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, subject to the following conditions: [(1) The drugs shall be purchased only from a dealer or a manufacturer licensed under these rules and records of such purchases showing the names and quantities of such drugs together with their batch numbers and the names and addresses of the manufacturers shall be maintained. Such records shall be open to inspection by an Inspector appointed under the Act, who may, if necessary, make enquiries about purchases of the drugs and may also take samples for test.] (2) In the case of medicine containing a substance specified in 1 [Schedule G, H or X] the following additional conditions shall be complied with:- (a) the medicine shall be labelled with the name and address of the registered medical practitioner by whom it is supplied; (b) if the medicine is for external application, it shall be labelled with the words *** “For external use only” or, if it is for internal use with the dose; (c) the name of the medicine or ingredients of the preparation and the quantities thereof, the dose prescribed, the name of the patient and the date of supply and the name of the person who gave the prescription shall be entered at the time of supply in register to be maintained for the purpose; (d) the entry in the register shall be given a number and that number shall be entered on the label of the container; (e) the register and the prescription, if any, on which the medicines are issued shall be preserved for not less than two years from the date of the last entry in the register or the date of the prescription, as the case may be. [(3) The drug will be stored under proper storage conditions as directed on the label.] [(4) No drug shall be supplied or dispensed after the date of expiration of potency recorded on its container, label or wrapper or in violation of any statement or direction recorded on such container, label or wrapper.] 5A. Drugs supplied by a hospital or dispensary maintained or supported by Government or local body. *** The provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the Rules thereunder which require them to be covered by a sale licence, subject to the following conditions:” 10. From a perusal of the Form No.7, in reference whereto the violation of the NDPS Act is attributed to the petitioner, it is clear that the details required to be mentioned therein are almost identical to those which are required to be mentioned in the Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. From a perusal of the Form No.7, in reference whereto the violation of the NDPS Act is attributed to the petitioner, it is clear that the details required to be mentioned therein are almost identical to those which are required to be mentioned in the Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the registers maintained under Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 at both the institutions were provided to them. There is no allegation regarding any discrepancies in the entries made therein. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of Mr. Jain that even if it is assumed that the petitioner failed to maintain the Form No.7 in the proper proforma, then too he had no mens rea whatsoever for committing any offence punishable under the NDPS Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Any comment by this court as to whether violation in the case at hand would be of Rule 65-A or that of 67-A of the NDPS Rules would be premature and may even prejudice the trial. The fact that all the medicinal preparations administered to the patients at both the institutions were lawfully procured is admitted in the complaint. On a perusal of the Supreme Court judgment in The State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra) relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, it comes out that the accused persons of that case were found in possession of bulk drugs without any valid authorization, whereas in the case at hand, the complaint itself reads that the drugs in question were lawfully acquired for the two medical institutions operated by the petitioner. Thus, the facts of the said case are totally distinguishable. The petitioner is suffering from serious medical ailments and he has been extended the benefit of interim bail by this court. He is a qualified medical professional and is a permanent resident of Haryana and owns significant properties. Thus, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding in the event of being released on bail. Furthermore, the respondents too have not expressed any apprehension either in the complaint or in their reply that the petitioner may repeat the offence, if released on bail. Thus, the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied. Hence, I am inclined to extend the indulgence of bail to the petitioner in this case. 11. Furthermore, the respondents too have not expressed any apprehension either in the complaint or in their reply that the petitioner may repeat the offence, if released on bail. Thus, the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied. Hence, I am inclined to extend the indulgence of bail to the petitioner in this case. 11. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dr. Dharmendra S/o Sh. Jagat Singh arrested in connection with Complaint No.1/2020 registered at the Office of C.B.N., Chittorgarh shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.2,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.