Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Idreesh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 12 of 2024 .
Reserved on: 27.02.2024 Date of Decision: 07.03.2024.
Mohammad Idreesh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram
r to ...Respondent
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that Mohit Bansal was intercepted near the Baddi Police Barrier driving a Creta Car bearing registration no. UP-80-FC-7530. A huge stock of spurious drugs was recovered from his possession. Mohit Bansal revealed that the present petitioner had sublet the godown to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 2him on a rent of ₹7500/- per month. The police found spurious drugs in the godown. The petitioner is an approved chemist. He .
had rented the godown to Mohit Bansal and Mohit Bansal is responsible for the articles found inside the godown. The petitioner was falsely implicated at the instance of Mohit Bansal.
The petitioner filed a bail petition which was dismissed on the ground that rigours of Section 36AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 apply to the present case and the petitioner was unable to bring the material to displace those rigours. The petitioner is not involved in the commission of any offence and the offence was committed by Mohit Bansal. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. His three daughters and wife are dependent upon him. No purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
2. The State filed a reply asserting that a huge stock of spurious drugs was recovered from the vehicle of Mohit Bansal bearing registration UP-80-FC-7530 at Baddi Police Barrier.
Mohit Bansal could not produce any document authorizing him to carry these drugs with him. A godown of spurious drugs was ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 3 identified at Mansadevi Complex, Baddi, Solan. Atul Gupta and Vijay Kaushal tried to open the godown and were apprehended .
by the Drug Inspector. The Drug Inspector and police official went to the godown. Mohit Bansal disclosed that godown was held by him jointly with Idreesh Mohammad, the present petitioner. The police found spurious drugs and loose tablets in the godown purported to have been manufactured by M/s USV Limited and M/s Cipla Limited. The representatives of these companies disclosed that they had not manufactured the drugs recovered on the spot. Mohit Bansal, Atul Gupta and Vijay Kaushal could not produce any licence for manufacturing or possessing the drugs. They disclosed that the drugs were manufactured by them at M/s Trizal Formulations. Vijay Kaushal disclosed that he had packed the drugs at Trizal Formulations. Mohit Bansal disclosed that Mohammad Idreesh had taken the godown on rent for keeping the spurious drugs.
Mohammad Idrish provided raw materials for the manufacturing of the drugs. The police went to Trizal Formulations and recovered the spurious drugs. Mohammad Idreesh provided raw materials on commission basis for the manufacturing of drugs. The drugs manufactured by Trizal ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 4 Formulations were also recovered from Agra. Mohit Bansal and Atul Gupta disclosed that they had taken a three-room set on .
rent where foils used for manufacturing the drugs were present.
The owner of the godown revealed that he had rented the godown to Idreesh Mohammad. He produced WhatsApp chat to this effect. His mobile phone was seized. Naresh Kumar was also arrested. Atul Gupta made a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of the spurious drugs. A Representative of Zydus Life Sciences Limited revealed that the recovered drugs were not manufactured by Zydus Pharma. The petitioner was working as a competent person of M/s KFS Biotech. The Directors also disclosed that the invoices of M/s KFS Biotech recovered from Mohit Bansal were forged. The present petitioner was arrested with the help of the police on 15.6.2023. He made a disclosure statement and produced the purchased bill of Alu-Alu foil from M/s Anu Enterprises which was used for manufacturing spurious drugs. He also produced the invoices for other materials that were used in M/s Trizal Formulations for manufacturing spurious drugs. A diary containing the rough details of the raw material purchased by him from Dinesh Sharma was also seized. Mohammad Idreesh disclosed that the ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 5 foils used for manufacturing the spurious drugs were supplied by Virender. He also disclosed that the material for .
manufacturing the spurious drugs was purchased by him from Dinesh. The mobile phone of the petitioner was seized. The petitioner identified Dinesh Sharma, who had supplied the spurious drugs and Virender who was printing the material for selling the spurious drugs. He could not produce any manufacturing licence. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. I have heard Mr. Javed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Javed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioner had rented out the godown to Mohit Bansal and the petitioner cannot be held liable for the acts of the tenant. The accused Mohit Bansal has named the petitioner to save himself. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Brajesh ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 6 Kumar Vs. State, Cr.MP(M) No. 2369 of 2023, decided on 29.12.2023 in support of his submission.
.
5. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was involved in the manufacturing of the spurious drugs. He was in contact with Dinesh Sharma who had supplied the raw material to him. The bail petition filed by Dinesh Sharma was rejected by this Court vide Cr.MP(M) No. 22 of 2023, decided on 27.9.2023. The bail petitions of Vijay Kaushal, Naresh Kumar and Surinder Malik were also rejected by this Court. The dismissal of the bail petition of Surinder Malik was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Malik Vs. State of H.P. SLP (Crl.) No. 1647 of 2024, decided on 2.2.2024. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the rigours of Section 369AC) were satisfied in the present case. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 7 Deepu @ Depak, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059, wherein it was observed as under:-
.
"12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;
(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.
13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 8 into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts has been explained in the following words:
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is .
very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)"
8. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:
7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 9 Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:
'9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere .
with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
r to
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.'
9. The petitioner asserted that he had rented the godown to Mohit Bansal and he cannot be held liable for the acts of Mohit Bansal. This is not correct. The status report clearly shows that the godown was taken on rent by the present petitioner. Mohit Bansal made a statement that Mohammad ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 10 Idreesh was getting the raw materials for the manufacturing of spurious drugs. Similarly, Atul Gupta stated that he used to .
procure raw materials for manufacturing the drugs and carry them to Trizal Formulations. The screenshot of WhatsApp between Mohit Bansal and the present petitioner (Annexure-D) has been filed in which there is a conversation regarding the supply of various materials. These screenshots corroborate the prosecution's version that the petitioner was involved in the manufacturing of the spurious drugs ultimately recovered from the godown.
10. The Statement of Naval Verma was also recorded in which he stated that Mohammad Idreesh employed him on a monthly salary of ₹20,000/- and Mohammad Idreesh was operating compressor and granulation. He and Shubham were helping him. Many drugs were being manufactured. He was told that the petitioner had a valid drug licence.
11. Similarly, Shivam Singh Thakur also stated that he was working under Mohammad Idreesh and various drugs were being manufactured at Trizal Formulations. These statements also show the involvement of the present petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 1112. Section 36-AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, clearly provides that a person accused of an offence related to .
spurious drugs shall not be released on bail where a public prosecutor opposes the application unless the Court is satisfied that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit such offence. In the present case, sufficient material has been collected by the prosecution to show that the petitioner is involved in the manufacture of spurious drugs. Thus, the condition that the bail petitioner is not reasonably guilty of the commission of offences involving spurious drugs is not satisfied. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner will not commit a similar offence in case of release on bail.
13. Therefore, the twin conditions laid down under Section 36 AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 are not satisfied in the present case. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.
14. This Court has already dismissed the bail applications of the co-accused Dinesh Sharma, Naresh Kumar, Vijay Kaushal and Surinder Kumar on similar grounds.
::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS 1215. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.
.
16. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the application and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
7th March, 2024
(Chander) r
::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:32:37 :::CIS