The Gujarat High Court has refused bail to a man accused of involvement in the illegal manufacture of Alprazolam, observing that offences involving narcotic drugs can have consequences comparable to murder because they endanger the lives of numerous vulnerable young people.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, in an order dated October 21, emphasised that individual liberty must be weighed against the wider interests of society, particularly when allegations involve activities capable of causing serious harm to public health and safety.
The Court dismissed the accused’s bail application after considering allegations that he knowingly participated in an illegal drug manufacturing operation concealed behind a business purportedly producing nail polish and nail polish remover.
Court Highlights Impact of Narcotic Drugs on Society
While examining the seriousness of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the High Court drew a comparison between drug-related crimes and murder.
The Court observed that while a murder may claim one or two lives, people involved in narcotics trafficking can cause death or inflict devastating harm on numerous innocent young people.
It further noted that illegal drug trafficking has contributed to growing addiction among members of the public, particularly adolescents and students, creating a serious social problem in recent years.
According to the Court, protecting society from such activities must remain an important consideration when deciding bail applications.
The High Court observed that keeping individuals allegedly engaged in activities harmful to society in custody during the pendency of proceedings could serve the broader public interest.
47.7 Kg of Alprazolam Recovered During Factory Raid
The prosecution case arose from a raid conducted at premises in Valsad, where authorities allegedly discovered an illegal operation manufacturing Alprazolam under the cover of producing nail polish-related products.
The accused was arrested on November 5, 2025.
According to the authorities, approximately 47.7 kg of Alprazolam was recovered during the investigation. They also stated that the raid resulted in the seizure of a total of 113.99 kg of drugs.
The accused was allegedly present at the premises with a labourer when the raid took place.
Investigators claimed that the manufacturing activities were deliberately concealed behind the apparent operation of a nail polish and nail polish remover production unit.
Alprazolam is generally prescribed for anxiety and depression but is also illegally consumed in combination with other substances to enhance their effects.
Accused Claimed Supervisory Role and Denied Involvement
Senior Advocate N.D. Nanavaty and Advocate Rahil P. Jain, representing the accused, maintained that their client had been falsely implicated in the case.
They argued that his involvement was limited to supervising the establishment and that he had no role warranting continued detention.
The defence also submitted that the accused was unlikely to abscond and was prepared to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court if granted bail.
Opposing the application, Advocate Hetvi Sancheti, appearing for the authorities, argued that the accused had been found at the manufacturing premises along with substantial quantities of finished and semi-finished drugs.
The prosecution maintained that his role went beyond providing logistical assistance. It alleged that he actively participated in manufacturing the narcotic substances, contributed money to the operation and shared its profits.
High Court Finds Material Indicating Active Participation
After examining the allegations and material placed before it, the High Court noted that the accused was not merely functioning as a supervisor at the premises.
The Court observed that he had knowledge of the illegal activities and was allegedly directly involved in manufacturing Alprazolam.
It also took into account the manner in which the operation was conducted under the appearance of a legitimate nail polish manufacturing business.
Considering the alleged involvement of the accused, the substantial quantity of drugs recovered and the wider consequences of narcotics-related offences, the High Court declined to grant bail.
The application was accordingly dismissed.
