Interim Order 40

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
2nd Regular Bail Application
IA/17 In SC495/2025
FIR No. 455/2024
State Vs. Brijesh Kothia
PS Special Cell
20.01.2026
This is the 2nd application U/s 483 BNSS, 2023
seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/ accused.
Present: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ld. Spl. PP for State
(through VC).
Ms. Kajol Garg, Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused.
On 24.12.2025, Ld. Counsels for applicant/accused
has argued that “the applicant/accused is falsely implicated in
this case. He further argued that the applicant/accused is a
director in Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. alongwith two other
directors namely Vijay Bhesania and Ashwin Ramani. They
further argued that in August 2024, one Abhilasha on behalf of
Pharma Solution Services had approached Aavkar Drugs Pvt.
Ltd. to use resources of Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the
talks were completed and agreement dt. 10.08.2024 was
executed.
They further argued that as per said
agreement, all the raw materials was to be arranged by Pharma
Solution Services and the company of applicant/accused used to
provide its infrastructure of water, heating, etc. According to
him, the Pharma Solution Services was responsible to make the
drug i.e. “Phnylephine hydrochloride intermediate” i.e. ‘a-(N-
methyl-N-benzylamino) -3-hydroxy acetophenone
hydrochloride (hereinafter referred to as GR-25) and
according to him as well as the prosecution the said drug is legal.
-- 1 of 10 --
-2-
He further argued that Rs. 850/- per Kg were to be paid to
Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. He further argued that whatever
quantity of aforesaid drug was purchased, the Aavkar Drugs
Pvt. Ltd. was paid as per rate of Rs. 850/- per Kg and the said
total amount has been duly shown by Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. in
its income tax return/ documents. He further submits that the said
document is annexed with the bail application at page no. 250 i.e.
Annexure A7.
He further argued that the aforesaid agreement was
not even signed by applicant/accused and he was not present
when the said agreement was signed. According to him, the
agreement has been signed by other directors namely Vijay
Bhesania and Ashwin Ramani , though he admit that the
applicant/accused is director in Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd.,
however, according to him the applicant/accused and other
directors did not know as to what illegal activities were being
done by Pharma Solution Services.
He has drawn attention of this court on the statement
of Abhilasha who is representing Pharma Solution Services.
According to him, the police has not even arrested the Abhilasha
as she also did not know about the nature of drug being prepared
by Pharma Solution Services. According to him, since the drug
was allegedly prepared at Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. therefore the
directors including applicant/accused have been arrested by
investigating agency by showing that they were negligent about
the product which was being produced in Aavkar Drugs Pvt.
Ltd. He further submits that the applicant/accused was not
having any knowledge about the product being prepared by
Pharma Solution Services, therefore, no case is made out
-- 2 of 10 --
-3-
against him. He further submits that the applicant/accused is in
JC since 13.10.2024 and investigation qua him is already
complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore,
he requests to admit the applicant/accused on bail.
Per contra, IO and Inspector Vineet submit that the
applicant/accused is director in Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. They
further submit that after executing the agreement dt. 10.08.2024
all the terms and conditions have been finalized between accused
Rana Tarandeep @ Sandeep Dhune (since absconding) and
director/ accused Ashwin Ramani. They further submit that
agreement dt. 10.08.2024 was executed through Abhilasha
Gupta only on the direction of accused Rana Tarandeep @
Sandeep Dhune.
They have drawn attention of this court on page no.
255 at para 8 of agreement dt. 10.08.2024. They further submit
that it is only after successful R&D demonstration of stage A and
B, the Pharma Solution Services was allowed to carry out four
demo plant batches mentioned in sub-para second of page no.
255. According to them, the first stage as mentioned in sub-para
01 of para 8 was not reached by Pharma Solution Services, it
had directly reached second stage and produced the drug namely
Mephedrone. According to them, the applicant/accused was
supposed to be vigilant as to what it is being produced by
Pharma Solution Services. They have drawn attention of this
court on the statement of one Hetal Patel as mentioned at page
no. 124 of the bail application. They further submit that similar
agreement was executed on behalf of
Life Saver Pharma i.e. the company of Rana Tarandeep @
Sandeep Dhune. As per the statement of Hetal Patel, he got
-- 3 of 10 --
-4-
prepared the end product and on checking it was found
Mephedrone and thereafter he cancelled the job work agreement
with Pharma Solution Services. Thus if the applicant/accused
was vigilant then Mephedrone could not be produced in his
factory. They further submit that the previous bail application of
applicant/accused was dismissed by Ld. previous court vide
order dt. 29.07.2025 and thereafter there is no change of
circumstances. They further submit that the bail application has
already been withdrawn by the applicant/accused vide order dt.
15.12.2025. Therefore, they request to dismiss the bail
application.
In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused has
drawn attention of this court on para no. 7 of agreement and he
pointed out that Pharma Solution Services was to appoint
expert authority and one or three chemist. Thus, according to
him, it was responsibility of Pharma Solution Services not of
Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd.”
On 03.01.2026, Ld. Spl. PP for State, IO and Ld.
Counsel for applicant/accused had argued that “Ld. Spl. PP for
state has drawn attention of this court on page no. 253 of para no.
4 of bail application and pointed out that Pharma Solution
Services was supposed to manufacture a- (N-methyl-N-
benzylamino)-3-hydroxy acetophenone hydrochloride
(hereinafter referred to as GR-25).
He further drawn attention of this court on page no.
256 of para 3rd and argued that Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. was
supposed to maintain the GR-25 quality and quantities and
recovery of solvents as per plant demo batches in all future
batches of GR-25. Thus according to him, the Pharma Solution
-- 4 of 10 --
-5-
Services was permitted only to manufacture a- (N-methyl-N-
benzylamino)-3-hydroxy acetophenone hydrochloride
(hereinafter referred to as GR-25), however, the final outcome
which was being prepared by Pharma Solution Services was
Mephedrone. He further argued that it was not a single incident,
however, the product i.e. Mephedrone was prepared by Aavkar
Drugs Pvt. Ltd. on several occasions. According to him, during
investigation 518 Kg Mephedrone was recovered from the
premises of Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. but before that about 800
Kg Mephedrone was also transported from Aavkar Drugs Pvt.
Ltd. and later on it was recovered from different different places
during investigation of this case and thus total 1290 Kg
Mephedrone was recovered.
He further argued that the applicant/accused was not
having knowledge about as to what was being made by Pharma
Solution Services is not tenable as the mistake can be done only
once but the Mephedrone was manufacture by Aavkar Drugs
Pvt. Ltd. continuously and was also transported from there at
different different places.
He has drawn attention of this court on page no. 253
of para no. 4 of bail application and argued that Aavkar Drugs
Pvt. Ltd. was responsible for storage of all raw materials and
final products manufactured in the GR-25. He has also pointed
out on para no. 8 of page no. 255 and argued that as per the said
para, if the Pharma Solution Services was successful in
manufacturing GR-25 only then further production will be
allowed by Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd.
He also argued that that the bail application of
applicant/accused was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of this court
-- 5 of 10 --
-6-
after filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter, the
applicant/accused preferred bail application before Hon’ble Delhi
High Court but the said bail application was also dismissed as
withdrawn. According to him, there is no change of
circumstances after dismissal of previous bail application. He
also argued that since there was commercial recovery, therefore,
Section 37 NDPS Act is applicable.
He also argued that the grounds of arrest were duly
informed to the applicant/accused and he has relied upon the
judgment titled Darshan Vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Petition
No. 200055/2025, decided on 28.01.2025 & Mihir Rajesh Shah
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 2195/25,
decided on 06.11.2025.
In addition to previous arguments, Ld. Counsels for
applicant/accused has argued that as per para no. 7 of page no.
255, the Pharma Solution Services Solution will appoint expert
authority and one or three chemists to monitor the batches of
GR-25. The whole manufacturer process to packing of final
goods will be carried out under the supervision of expertise
authority.
They further argued that during investigation
accused Mayor Desale i.e. the Chemist, was arrested and his
statement was recorded and his statement is available at page no.
380 of bail application who is B.Sc graduate and his interview
was taken by kingpin i.e. Rana Tarandeep @ Sandeep Dhune
(since absconding) and thereafter he was given offer letter and
asked that the production of his company will be done by Avkar
Drugs Pvt. Ltd. located at 3708, GIDC, Ankleshwar, Bharuch,
Gujrat. He also pointed out that as per his statement, the accused
-- 6 of 10 --
-7-
Rana Tarandeep @ Sandeep Dhune (since absconding)
informed accused Mayor Desale through whatsapp chat as to
from where the raw material will be provided and how the
production was to be made.
He drawn attention of this court on the whatsapp
chat between accused Rana Tarandeep @ Sandeep Dhune
(since absconding) and Mayor Desale available at page no. 374
on the bail application and pointed out that accused Rana
Tarandeep @ Sandeep Dhune asked accused Mayor Desale
not to tell anyone about the extra step i.e of putting 80 ml
chloroform during production of alleged GR-25. Thus according
to him, the applicant/accused was not having any knowledge as
to what product was being prepared/ manufactured.
He further argued that the Abhilasha Gupta had
entered into the agreement of the company of applicant/accused
on behalf of accused Rana Tarandeep @ Sandeep Dhune but
she has not been made accused by the prosecution stating that she
was not having any knowledge about the offence. According to
him, the maximum act of applicant/accused is of negligence only
and there is difference between negligence and offence. He
stressed on the point that only Rs. 850/- per Kg was being
provided to the company of applicant/accused and the
applicant/accused was not having any knowledge about the
offence.
He also argued that the bail application of
applicant/accused was withdrawn from Hon’ble Delhi High
Court with liberty to file separate application. He has filed copy
of order dt. 15.12.2025 on behalf of applicant/accused”.
Submissions considered. Record perused.
-- 7 of 10 --
-8-
As per the facts of the case, an international drug
cartel is being carried out by Virendra Singh @ Basoya and
Rana Tarandeep @ Sandeep Dhune and they are operating
from UK, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand and Dubai. During
investigation of this case total 1290 Kg contraband i.e. Cocaine
/Meth and 39.706 kg Marijuana was recovered. The company
of applicant/accused i.e. Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. executed an
agreement with Pharma Solution Services and allowed its
infrastructure of water, heating, etc. to use by Pharma Solution
Services to make a drug i.e. “Phnylephine hydrochloride
intermediate” i.e. ‘a-(N-methyl-N-benzylamino) -3-hydroxy
acetophenone hydrochloride (hereinafter referred to as
GR-25). Thus, as per the agreement, Pharma Solution Services
was to make GR25. It is only after successful R&D
demonstration of stage A and B, the Pharma Solution Services
was allowed to carry out four demo plant batches mentioned in
sub-para second of page no. 255 of bail application but the first
stage as mentioned in sub-para 1st of para 8 of page no. 255 of
bail application was not reached by Pharma Solution Services
and it had directly reached second stage and produced the drug
namely Mephedrone. As per para 3rd of page no. 256 of bail
application Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the company of
applicant/accused was supposed to maintain the GR-25 quality
and quantity and recovery of solvents as per plant demo batches
in all future batches of GR-25. The Pharma Solution Services
was permitted only to manufacture GR-25 but the final product
was made as Mephedrone.
Thus, the company of applicant/accused was
supposed to maintain the GR-25 quality and prima facie to
-- 8 of 10 --
-9-
maintain its quality. The company was supposed to check the
final product but it was not checked and thus Pharma Solution
Services prepared Mephedrone.
Further, as per the facts of the case, during
investigation 518 Kg Mephedrone was recovered from the
premises of company of applicant/accused and before that about
800 Kg Mephedrone was transported from the company of
applicant/accused which was later on recovered from different
different places.
Further, as per the judgment Mihir Rajesh Shah
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 8704/2025
decided on 06.11.2025 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held to the effect that
the grounds of arrest would be supplied to accused persons,
henceforth i.e. from the date of said judgment. The said judgment
was pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
06.11.2025. The present matter pertains to the date prior to the
date of said judgment, therefore, there was no mandatory
requirement of supplying the grounds of arrest in writing to
accused persons at the relevant time when he was arrested,
therefore, the present contention of Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused is also rejected.
Thus, the allegations against applicant/accused are
serious in nature. A huge quantity of Mephedrone and
Marijuana was recovered from the investigation of this case.
It is well settled that the nature and gravity of
accusation, severity of the punishment, danger of the accused
absconding, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced, prime facie case against the accused, danger to the
-- 9 of 10 --
-10-
society etc. are factors which have to be kept in mind while
exercising powers for grant of bail. In my considered opinion
and owing to the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am
not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/ accused at this stage.
The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant/
accused are respectfully differentiated and are of, therefore, no
help to him. Accordingly, bail application of the applicant/
accused Brijesh Kothia stands dismissed.
The observations made on the merits of the case are
purely for the purposes of deciding the present bail application
and shall not be construed as expression upon the merits of the
case.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the IO as well as
to the Ld. Counsel for applicant/ accused and be communicated
to the applicant/ accused through Jail Superintendent for
information.
(Virender Singh)
Special Judge, NDPS,
Central,THC, Delhi/20.01.2026
-- 10 of 10 --