Himachal Pradesh High Court
Naresh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 April, 2024
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr.MP (M) No.169 of 2024 Reserved on: 22.03.2024 Decided on : 05.04.2024 Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) for releasing him on bail in a Complaint case under Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 17 & 17B, 18(a) (vi), 18(c), 22(3) and 36AD of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'DAC Act').
1. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:14 :::CIS 22. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per the status .
report filed by the respondent-State, are that on 22.11.2022, a huge stock of spurious medicines was recovered by the Drugs Inspector from Mohit Bansal during the course of search of vehicle bearing registration No.UP80FC-7530 (Creta Car), at Baddi Police Barrier, the detail of which is given as under:-
Sr. Product Quantity/ Value in Manufacturer name (as per the No. name tablets rupees label claim)
1. Zerodol 190100 39,73,090/- M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd.
TH4 tablets Melli Jorethang Road Gom
Block Bharikhola, South District
Sikkim.
2. Roseday 28950 3,65,638/- M/s USV Private Ltd. Khasra
10 tablets No. 1342/1/2 Hill Top Industrial
tablets Area Jharmajri, Baddi, Solan,
H.P.
3. Montair 50720 10,76,684/- Cipla Ltd. Unit II Taza Block
10 tablets Sikkim, India.
3. For the aforesaid spurious medicines, said Mohit Bansal could not produce any licence/authorization and subsequently, during the course of search of his godown, the following spurious medicines were also recovered:-
Sr. Product Quantity/ Value in Manufacturer name (as No. name tablets rupees per the label claim)
1. Montair 10 295800 62,79,245/- Cipla Ltd. Sikkim.
tablets
2. Atorva 10 31650 2,15,874/- M/s Zydus Healthcare tablets tablets Sikkim.::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:14 :::CIS 3
3. Roseday-10 97420 12,30,414/- M/s USV Limited Baddi.
tablets tablets
.
4. Zerodol TH4 71080 14,85,572/- M/s IPCA Laboratories
tablets Limited, Sikkim.
4. Besides the above recovered spurious medicines, a huge stock of loose tablets of Calcium, Torsemide and active raw materials as Amplodipine alongwith excepients PvPK 30, plain & printed foils and packaging material used for manufacturing of spurious drugs, was also recovered and all the drugs and material recovered were seized and thereafter three persons, namely, Mohit Bansal, Vijay Kaushal and Atul Gupta were arrested on 22.11.2022. During interrogation, accused Mohit Bansal disclosed that Naresh Kumar (petitioner herein), an employee of M/s USV Limited Baddi, was doing the work of coating of spurious medicines and as per the allegations against the petitioner, he was found to be involved in coating the drugs in Lab of M/s Trizal Formulations Baddi, Solan, H.P and in sequel to the aforesaid recoveries and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the instant case was registered against him and he was arrested on 27.11.2022.::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:14 :::CIS 4
5. During the course of further investigation, a huge .
stock of following spurious drugs was also recovered on 01.12.2022:-
Sr. Product Quantity/ Value in Manufacturer name (as No. name tablets rupees per the label claim)
1. Glimisave 66000 8,06,652/- M/s Eris Lifesciences M2 tables tablets Limited, Amingaon North Guwahati Kamrup Assam
2. Roseday 10 43950 5,55,088/- M/s USV Private Limited tablets tablets Plot No.6 & 7E HPSIDC, Indl. Area Baddi, Solan H.P.
3. MONTAIR 67350 14,29,705/- M/s Cipla Ltd., Unit II Taza tables tablets Block Rorathang Sikkim.
6. It was alleged that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons manufactured the aforesaid spurious tablets and transported the same to Agra through M/s TCI Express (Courier service) to his own godown at Agra and thereafter these medicines were recalled and seized on 04.12.2022 and further allegation against the petitioner was that he also manufactured the spurious tablets of same drug, brand and company at M/s Trizal Formulations, Plot No.29 DIC Baddi, Solan, H.P. in connivance with other accused persons, which he used to manufacture at M/s USV P Ltd. Baddi, Solan, H.P. The test and analysis reports of all samples were received from ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:14 :::CIS 5 Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory (RDTL), Chandigarh, .
wherein it was found that the samples were not of standard quality and also being spurious in nature.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further contended that the petitioner was only working as a labourer and whatever his master would ask to do, he was doing without knowing and realizing about the contents of the medicines. He also contended that the investigation of the case is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, hence, it is prayed that the petitioner, who is behind the bars for the last more than 14 months, may be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail as he has been found involved in a serious offence of the manufacture of the drugs which are found spurious. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:14 :::CIS 6 change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail .
application.
9. Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a bail application being Cr.MP(M) No.401 of 2023 before this Court, seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2023, as this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner was knowingly involved in the manufacture and transportation of spurious drugs in connivance with other accused persons, knowing pretty well that the drugs were spurious and had jeopardized the life of the innocent persons.
10. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:14 :::CIS 7 the order of releasing him on bail in successive bail application .
merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail.
11. This Court, confronted Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, to point out the change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.
The only argument which the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced is that the petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2022 and the trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future. However, keeping in view the seriousness of offence, merely because there is a delay in trial, is not a ground for grant of bail. There is a, prima-facie, material against the petitioner that he was knowingly involved in the manufacture and transportation of spurious drugs in connivance with other accused persons. In view of the nature and gravity of the offence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of the ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:14 :::CIS 8 regular bail application, there is no change in the circumstances .
which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application.
Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained.
The application is hereby dismissed.
13. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.
( Sushil Kukreja )
April 05, 2024 Judge
(VH)
::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:14 :::CIS