Jharkhand High Court
Vidyanand Prasad @ Rinku Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 14 September, 2020
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3471 of 2020
-------
Vidyanand Prasad @ Rinku Barnwal ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through- Video Conferencing
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
-------
02/14.09.2020 Heard Mr. V.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.
So far as defect nos. 3, 4, 5(e), 9(i) and 9(vi) are concerned learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the same once the situation normalizes. As regards, the rest defects are concerned, the same are ignored.
The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No. 29 of 2020.
From a room adjacent to the medical shop of the petitioner physician sample medicines which were not meant for sale were recovered.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for sometime the room adjacent to the medical shop of the petitioner was occupied by Dr. Maheshwaram and the physician sample which were purportedly recovered were in fact given to him by the medical representatives of different companies. It has further been submitted that there has been no complaint whatsoever in any corner regarding the petitioner having indulged in sale of the physician sample of medicines. It has further been stated that the petitioner has a valid drug license which is valid till 2025 and it is an admitted fact that from the medical shop of the petitioner the physician sample of the medicines were not recovered.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner.
-2-The petitioner appears to be the proprietor of M/s. Prasad Medical Agency. At the time of the raid a written statement was given by the petitioner in which he had stated that the physician sample of medicines were procured by him from Asansol. There is nothing on record to indicate otherwise save and except a bare statement made by the petitioner that the said room was used as a chamber by one Dr. Maheshwaram and that the physician sample was given to him by the medical representatives attending his chamber.
In such view of the matter, therefore, the culpability of the petitioner being apparent, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application accordingly stands rejected (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-