Bhupendra Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2021

[Cites 9, Cited by 36]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhupendra Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2021

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 1457

They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers. This order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. No.32468/2021, as both the cases have arisen out of the same Crime No.356/2021.

These are the applicants' first applications under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.356/2021 registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 188 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and also under Section 24 of 2 MCRC Nos.33423 & 32468 of 2021 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987.

The applicants are in custody since 18.04.2021. The allegation against the applicants is one of black-marketing of Remdesivir Injection. It is alleged that during the peak of COVID-19 Virus, the applicants were found in possession of Remdesivir Injection, which they intended to sell at a higher price. It is further alleged that from the possession of applicant No.1 Bhupendra in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.33423/2021, one Remedesivir Injection was found and from the possession of applicant Kavita in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.32468/2021, another such injection was recovered.

Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case, as the applicants Bhupendra and Shubham who are real brothers, were found in joint possession of Remedesivir Injections which were purchased by them for the purpose of their family members who were suffering from COVID-19 Virus, hence on 01.04.2021 and 02.04.2021, eighteen Remedesivir Injections were purchased from Shanti Medical Store, G-27, Dawa Bazar, 13-14 RNT Marg, Indore vide Annexure A/8 and in the Invoice of which, batch number of injection (Vial) is also mentioned and from the possession of applicant, one Remedesivir Injection of the same batch number has been recovered.

MCRC Nos.33423 & 32468 of 2021 Counsel has submitted that applicant Bhupendra Parmar is a doctor by profession and applicant Shubham Parmar is a Medical Representative.

Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the HR CT Scan Thorax for evaluation of COVID-19, of the family members of the applicants, viz., Purshottam Parmar-father, Dr. Preeti Parmar (wife) and Sandhya Parmar (mother), copies of which have also been filed vide Annexure A/6 along with their medical prescription slip as Annexure A/7.

Counsel has also submitted that even otherwise, the maximum sentence under Section 188 of IPC is one month only whereas the applicants are in jail since almost three months and the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, despite the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that the offence registered against the applicant is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for applicant Kavita in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.32468/2021 has also submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the case, as she has been arraigned on the basis of memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the main accused Nilesh Chouhan s/o Ghanshyam Chouhan. So far as recovery of Remedesivir I.V. Injection is concerned, it is submitted that the applicant is a Diploma Holder in General Nursing 4 MCRC Nos.33423 & 32468 of 2021 Midwifery and the said injection has been seized from the Barod Hospital only (Managed by Gokuldas Hospital).

Thus, counsel for the applicants have submitted that the applicants, who are in jail since 18.04.2021, be released on bail and their bail applications be allowed.

Shri Shashwat Seth, learned counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that proceedings under Sections 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (herein after referred to as the NSA Act) were initiated against the applicant (Bhupendra @ Sachin s/o Purushottam Parmar) and as such, no case for grant of bail is made out.

In rebuttal, Shri Rishi Tiwari, counsel for the applicants in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.33423/2021 has submitted that order dated 20.04.2021 (Annexure A/4) passed by the District Magistrate, Indore under the provisions of the NSA Act has already been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9264/2021 and Writ Petition No.9267/2021 vide order dated 24.06.2021 (Annexure A/5).

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the copy of the charge sheet (copy of which has been filed by the counsel for the applicants in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.33423/2021 as Annexure A/9), this Court finds force with the contention raised by the counsel for the applicants and taking into account the period of incarceration of the applicants and the nature 5 MCRC Nos.33423 & 32468 of 2021 of the allegations leveled against the applicants, this Court finds it expedient to allow the present bail applications.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applications filed by the applicants stand allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

It is also observed that if the applicants are found in any of the criminal activities, after their release on bail, then the present bail order shall stand cancelled without further reference to this Court; and the State / prosecution will be free to arrest the accused in the present case also.

This order shall also be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Pithawe RC RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE 2021.07.19 17:45:18 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court