Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Nandlal Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 5 February, 2020

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               A.B.A. No. 494 of 2020
                          ------
        Nandlal Prasad                ...               Petitioner
                                      Versus
       The State of Jharkhand         ...                Opposite Party
                                      ------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

       For the Petitioner       : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
       For the State            : Mr. N.P. Thakur, Addl. P.P.
                                       ------
       Order No.04 Dated- 05.02.2020

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barharwa P.S. Case No.32 of 2016 (G.R. No. 120 of 2016) registered under sections 419/420/467/468/470/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 18 A (i)/18 A (vi)/17 B (a) and 17 B (c) and 27(c)and 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the informant- drug inspector seized drug from Community Health Center, Barharwa which was found to have been manufactured by M/s Win Care Pharmaceutical, Sandalpur, Panji Goa though M/s Win Care Pharmaceutical has no licence for manufacturing the drug, rather the M/s Win Care Pharmaceutical has only licence as a wholeseller of the said drug. It is further submitted that M/s Abhishek Enterprises has purchased the said drug from Mahalakshmi Pharmaceuticals but on investigation it was found that M/s Mahalakshmi Pharmaceuticals is a nonexistent entity. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a dealer/ supplier of the medicine and has proper drug licence issued by the competent authority though it is mentioned in paragraph no.12 of the petition that the petitioner has purchased the said alleged spurious medicine namely Cipowin from M/s Win Care Pharmaceutical, Sandalpur, Patna but the petitioner has no documents to show such purchase rather the document shows that the purchase was made by the petitioner from the nonexistent firm namely M/s Mahalakshmi Pharmaceuticals. It is also submitted that the medicines were supplied to the petitioner through or in the name of Mahalakshmi Pharmaceuticals and though one M/s Win Care Pharmaceutical is existing in Patna but it has no licence to manufacture medicines rather it procures the medicines from M/s Kras Pharmaceutical Private Limited and to this effect a certificate has been issued by M/s Kras Pharmaceutical Private Limited. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that this is only the tip of iceberg of huge quantity of spurious medicines supplied to government hospitals situated at the remote corner of the country and to find out the details of spurious medicines supplied in the name of nonexistent Pharmaceutical firm and unlicensed manufacturers as well as the involvement of various persons involved in criminal conspiracy of supplying medicines to the Government including the officers of State Government, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons whose names are likely to crop upon during the investigation of the case, supplying huge quantity of spurious medicines threatening the life of innocent citizens of this country after purchasing the same from nonexistent Pharmaceutical suppliers and unlicensed manufacturers of spurious drug and thereby endangering the life and limb of innocent people of the country, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Gunjan-