Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Order Date: 12/08/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant Ravi Kamleshbhai Patel vs. Union of India & Anr., with Respondent No.2 being the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad.
  • Application: Filed under Section 439 of the Indian Penal Code seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. DRI/AZU/GI-02/ENQ-01/NDPS/2024, Special NDPS Case No. 46 of 2024, pending before the Special Court (NDPS) in Ahmedabad.
  • Offences alleged: Violations of Sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 27‑A, 28 & 29 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
  • Arrest details: Patel was arrested on 17.01.2024 and has been in custody for more than two and a half years; trial has not yet commenced.
  • Prosecution’s case: The company, Megashri Agri Pharma Chem Private Limited, held a licence to manufacture Hydroxylimine Hydrochloride, a precursor to Ketamine. It is alleged that the company manufactured Ketamine under the guise of the licensed product and exported it to Thailand. A shipment dispatched to Bangkok was intercepted and found to contain Ketamine.
  • Evidence presented:
  • Sample analysis showed Ketamine percentages of 6.9% and 3.5%; applicant argued the substance was Hydroxylimine Hydrochloride resulting from a chemical reaction.
  • Patel served as Director of the company since July 2023.
  • Co‑accused Bharatsinh Kanaksinh Jadeja allegedly shared the manufacturing process with Patel.
  • Meetings occurred between Patel and co‑accused Nagarajan Darmalingam and other directors; Darmalingam was allowed to monitor the factory premises.
  • Negotiations on product pricing were conducted between Patel and Darmalingam.
  • Process documents were recovered from Patel’s mobile phone; chat records between Patel and co‑accused were also recovered.
  • Payments for exports were received by the company from Darmalingam through hawala channels.
  • The quantity involved is described as a commercial quantity, invoking the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
  • Arguments:
  • Applicant’s counsel argued that mere directorship without active participation should not render Patel an accused and highlighted the low Ketamine percentages.
  • Respondent (Union of India/DRI) contended Patel was actively involved in the conspiracy and should not be granted bail.
  • State counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, after considering the submissions and evidence, found no basis to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
  • The bail application is dismissed; Ravi Kamleshbhai Patel remains in custody.

Topics: NDPS Act, Bail Application