Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Chaudhary vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 1 December, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171
CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023 -1-
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023
Reserved on: 21.11.2023
Pronounced on: 01.12.2023
Sunil Chaudhary
-Pe..oner
Versus
State of UT Chandigarh
-Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Alok Mi7al, Advocate,
for the pe..oner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., UT, Chandigarh.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta.on Sec.ons 06 27.09.2023 Vigilance, 7, 8 and 12 of PC Act, 1988 Chandigarh, (Sec.on 7 added later on)
1. The pe..oner who is incarcerated upon his arrest in the FIR cap.oned above, has come up before this Court by filing the present pe..on on 17.10.2023 under Sec.on 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking an.cipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 16 of the bail pe..on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. Vide order dated 19.10.2023, this Court had granted interim an.cipatory bail subject to compliance with stringent condi.ons. This Court had also directed the pe..oner to declare the assets as men.oned in para no.17 of the said order. When the ma7er was heard on 21.11.2023, counsel for the pe..oner stated that they had kept the affidavit ready; however, in the opinion of this Court, filing of the affidavit would not be required, and the order to the effect of filing an affidavit is re-called.
4. State counsel has filed a status report by way of affidavit of OSD Vigilance, Chandigarh. Facts of the case are being extracted from the status report, which reads as follows: -
"That the brief facts of the case are that one Case/ FIR No.006 Dated 27.09.2023 Under Sec!ons 8, 12 of PC Act 1988 (Sec!on 7 added later on), PS- Vigilance, Chandigarh was registered on the basis of a complaint given by one Deo Sharan Sah, against one Sunil Kumar and one Ashok Narula who alleged in the complaint that about a month ago, during the noon !me one Sunil Chaudhary present pe!!oner came to the shop of the complainant along with another person named Ashok Narula, the said Ashok Narula o5en visits the medical shop along with the drug control officer. That Sunil Chaudhary and Ashok Narula inspected the shop. During inspec!on Sunil Chaudhary stated that the shop suffers from discrepancies, and they will seal it. Upon which Complainant state that these are minor discrepancies and the 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2023 03:52:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171 CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023 -2- same will fixed. Therea5er Ashok Narula stated that he will get the shop sealed, to which complainant requested not to do So therea5er Sunil Chaudhary signed one paper and Ashok Narula told the complainant that he can get the work done for Rs.1 Lakh and the shop will not be sealed. To which the complainant expressed his in-ability to pay, whereupon Ashok Narula returned a5er some !me and stated give Rs.80,000/- to pe!!oner. Therea5er Ashok Narula and Sunil Chaudhary le5 and at the !me of leaving Ashok Narula told the pe!!oner to handover the money at his office at Sector 20. That the complainant was not able to arrange the money and a5er few days complainant went to Sector 16(GH) to meet Sunil Chaudhary to pull down the said amount upon which he said that no rebate can be granted. That few days prior to this a no!ce was received and complainant got scared a5er receiving the no!ce therea5er, he took the copy of the no!ce to Narula and met his outside his office on 21st September, where he requested the co-accused namely Ashok Narula to help him to get rid of this no!ce to which Ashok Narula replied and said that get Rs.80,000/- and then he shall take the complainant to Sunil Chaudhary and get the work done. This shows that the present pe!!oner and Ashok Narula are in connivance with each other. That the complainant further stated that complainant does not want to pay bribe money on the pretext of selling his shop. Therea5er the complainant gave a complainant for ini!a!on of the legal ac!on against the above accused. That it is per!nent to men!on here that the pe!!oner had ac!vely par!cipated in the above stated crime. The pe!!oner along with the co-accused namely Ashok Narula had conducted an inspec!on on 29.08.2023 on the shop of the complainant having name M/s Divine Surgical and had prepared a report dated 29.08.2023showing the defects in the shop of the complainant, therea5er, pressurized the complainant to pay him bribe money of Rs.1 Lakh through co- accused if he wants to make clear the defects in the shop. That as per the allega!ons the pe!!oner had further nego!ated the bribe amount through his agent/co-accused namely Ashok Narula from Rs.1 Lakh to Rs.80,000/- which clearly shows that the pe!!oner was having prior inten!on of taking illegal bribe money from the complainant. Therefore, the pe!!oner had raided the shop of the complainant. That it is important to men!on here that the pe!!oner had very much clear inten!on to grab the illegal bribe money from the complainant by scaring the complainant which can be reflected from the fact that the pe!!oner had prepared the inspec!on report on 29.08.2023 and therea5er, the pe!!oner inten!onally kept the report pending just to pressurize and scare the complainant because the pe!!oner was s!ll in the process of bargaining with the complainant through co-accused Ashok Narula. When the complainant showed his in- ability to pay the illegal bribe money to the pe!!oner then on 08.09.2023 i.e. a5er a delay of about 10 days submiCed the inspec!on report to the Principal Medical Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Chandigarh and a show cause no!ce dated 14.09.2023 was given to the complainant on 21.09.2023. Then, the pe!!oner and co- accused had again put pressure upon the complainant and again demanded illegal gra!fica!on from the complainant and the maCer was seCled for Rs. 80,000/- for withdrawal of shoe cause no!ce through co-accused Ashok Narula. Then, the complainant approached to the Vigilance and a trap was setup by the vigilance team and the co-accused Ashok Narula was caught hold red handed by the Vigilance Team and trap money was recovered from the co-accused Ashok Narula which he had obtained on the behalf of pe!!oner namely Sunil Chaudhary (Drug Inspector) for withdrawal/ quashing of the show cause no!ce dated 14.09.2023. That it worth to men!on here that the co-accused Ashok Narula had suffered the statement of Sec!on 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2023 03:52:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171 CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023 -3- Court below, in which he had clearly stated that he had accepted the money for Sunil Kumar i.e. present pe!!oner in lieu of withdrawing the Show cause no!ce dated 14.09.2023 issued by the pe!!oner to the complainant with regard to the viola!ons /discrepancies in his shop. That it is per!nent to men!on here that the statement of one Peon namely Subachchan Ram of GMSH-16, Chandigarh has also been recorded under sec!on 161 of Cr.P.C. who had confirmed the presence of the co- accused Ashok Narula who was assis!ng the pe!!oner at the !me of inspec!on of shop of the complainant ie. on 29.08.2023 at Dhanas, Chandigarh. That it is further submiCed here that the telephonic conversa!on between the complainant and Co-accused Ashok Narula clearly proves that the pe!!oner is involved in the present case and on his instance the co- accused Ashok Narula demanded and accepted the money as bribe to withdraw the show cause no!ce. That it is per!nent to men!on here that pe!!oner gaining suspicion of being trapped immediately ran away from the spot. As such this act of the pe!!oner further strengthens the suspicion of pe!!oner involvement in the alleged crime. Had the pe!!oner have not done any such alleged crime he would not have run from the spot. That the present pe!!oner is a master mind and kingpin and had ac!vely par!cipated in the alleged crime."
5. I have heard counsel for the par.es and gone through the status report.
6. The pe..oner's stand is that nothing was recovered from him, and he also prepared the Inspec.on Report, Annexure P-2, and as such, there was no ques.on of demanding any bribe. Furthermore, the allega.ons of demanding bribe are against Ashok Narula and not against the pe..oner. Referring to grounds taken for bail in the bail pe..on would be relevant. The pe..oner claims that it was Ashok Narula who demanded the bribe and had called the complainant along with money to come to Sector-20, Chandigarh, where the office of the pe..oner is also situated, and thus, there were no allega.ons that the pe..oner had also demanded money. The next argument is that when the complainant received the no.ce from the office of the Principal Medical Officer-cum-Licensing Authority on 14.09.2023, he panicked and visited the office of co-accused Ashok Narula and asked him to get rid of such no.ce. The pe..oner claims that the no.ce issued by the Principal Medical Officer-cum- Licensing Authority was based on an inspec.on conducted by the pe..oner; thus, the pe..oner claims that it is highly improbable that, on the one hand, he would prepare the report about the deficiencies and, on the other hand, demand a bribe.
7. Based on the reply, the Sate's counsel argued that this was precisely the modus operandi of the pe..oner. He submits that it has come in the inves.ga.on that the pe..oner, along with co-accused Ashok Narula, had inspected the shop of the complainant M/s Divine Surgical on 29.08.2023 and had prepared a report dated 29.08.2023 showing the deficiencies in the shop and then pressurize the complainant to pay a bribe of Rs.1 lac if he wanted to clear such defects. AMer that, the pe..oner nego.ated the bribe amount through his agent, co-accused Ashok Narula, and the demand for a bribe was reduced from Rs.1 lac to Rs.80,000/-. Further inves.ga.on reveals that aMer preparing the report on 29.08.2023, the pe..oner inten.onally kept the report pending to pressure and scare the complainant because he was bargaining through the co-accused regarding the bribe amount. On 08.09.2023, i.e., aMer ten days, 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2023 03:52:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171 CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023 -4- when the complainant showed his inability to pay the bribe amount, they inspected the shop and submi7ed the report to the Principal Medical Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Chandigarh and based on that, a show cause no.ce was issued on 14.09.2023. AMer that, the pe..oner again pressured the complainant to se7le the no.ce, and the ma7er was se7led for Rs.80,000/- for withdrawal of show cause no.ce. The pe..oner did all such se7lements through co-accused Ashok Narula. At that point, the complainant contacted the vigilance department, where a trap was laid, and Ashok Narula was caught red-handed.
8. It would be relevant to extract paras no.17 and 18 of the reply which reads as under: -
"17. That it is submiCed here that the custodial interroga!on of the pe!!oner is very much required to unfold the conspiracy of extor!ng money from other Drug License holders/Chemists Etc. and kind/type of favor given by the pe!!oner in lieu of Bribe to them and also to ascertain how many show cause no!ces had been got quashed by the pe!!oner. Thus, custodial interroga!on of the pe!!oner is very much required thus, he does not deserve the concession of an!cipatory bail.
18. That earlier also Vigilance Department Chandigarh had enquired the maCer against Sunil Chaudhary in the year 2009. Presently number of complaints has been received from different modes against Sunil Chaudhary regarding demand of bribe and money extor!on from chemist in Chandigarh."
9. Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, UT, Chandigarh further contends that Administra.on have received various complaints against the pe..oner for taking bribes, but because the chemists are afraid of Drug Inspectors and Drug Controllers, most of them stay away from filing complaints, and it is rarely a bold person like the complainant that comes forward. He further submits that perusal of the bail pe..on does not point out any rivalry between the complainant and the pe..oner or any mo.ve for the complainant to implicate the pe..oner falsely.
10. On analyzing the pe..on, reply, and arguments addressed by counsel for the par.es, it is clear that the complainant's shop was inspected, deficiencies were found, and one no.ce through the Principal Medical Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Chandigarh was issued. The inves.gator has found traces of evidence that the pe..oner, in connivance with his co-accused Ashok Narula, demanded a bribe of Rs.1 lac, which aMer nego.a.ons was finally se7led to Rs.80,000/-. The bribe money was for geNng the show cause no.ce withdrawn, which was issued by the pe..oner against the complainant for deficiencies in the medical store. When the complainant had informed the vigilance people, on 27.09.2023, a trap was laid, and Ashok Narula was apprehended, accep.ng a bribe of Rs.25,000/-. During interroga.on, he disclosed that he has se7led numerous drug files in connivance with the pe..oner and had taken bribes in all such cases. The prosecu.on also recorded a statement from Ashok Narula under Sec.on 164 CrPC, in which he reiterated that the bribe money had been accepted at the behest of the pe..oner, who had the primary authority. It would be per.nent to refer to the informa.on that the complainant, the owner of the medical shop, specifically stated that around a month ago, the pe..oner had come to his shop along 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2023 03:52:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171 CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023 -5- with another person, Ashok Narula, and Ashok Narula usually visited the medical shop along with the Drug Controller/Inspector, i.e., the pe..oner. AMer inspec.ng the shop, the pe..oner stated there were so many deficiencies and that they would seal it. On this, the complainant pleaded that the deficiencies were minor and that he would remove them. On this, Ashok Narula insisted on sealing the shop, but the complainant persuaded them not to do so. At this, the pe..oner signed some papers and was told they could get his work done for Rs.1 lac and not seal the shop. Thus, it is clear that in the FIR, the complainant had explicitly pointed out that when Ashok Narula demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac, the pe..oner was with him, and both had inspected the shop. The complainant had agreed to give a bribe of Rs.80,000/- only aMer such assurance they leM the shop. Later on, the complainant informed the police, and the police laid a trap and recovered the bribe money from Ashok Kumar. Thus, sufficient evidence connects the pe..oner with the bribe, and the pe..oner Sunil Chaudhary is not en.tled to an.cipatory bail.
11. The pe..oner occupied the role of the Drug Inspector, a pivotal posi.on in the regulatory structure of our healthcare system. This posi.on entails not just ensuring adherence to established regula.ons and standards in the produc.on and distribu.on of drugs but also involves vigilant market monitoring, detec.on of counterfeit drugs, and implemen.ng measures to guarantee efficacy, quality, and public safety. It is a ground reality that only well-established pharmaceu.cal companies adhering to interna.onal standards and ethical manufacturing prac.ces maintain a commendable reputa.on and quality. Unfortunately, a significant por.on of companies deviate from expected manufacturing standards, producing substandard drugs containing harmful substances. Subsequently, they also engage in a prac.ce of prin.ng a maximum retail price several .mes higher than the cost price, and also the wholesale price, crea.ng a lucra.ve incen.ve for unscrupulous individuals and organisa.ons in the medical field to prescribe and promote such medicines. It is to curb and cap these unfair excessive profit margins, and counter such ac.vi.es, the Execu.ve appoints individuals to posi.ons such as drug inspectors and controllers, incurring significant expenses from the public treasury. Pa.ents oMen find themselves in a posi.on of reliance on drug regulatory officers when it comes to determining the quality and efficacy of the drugs they use. Unlike other consumer products, the complexity of pharmaceu.cals makes it challenging for pa.ents to independently assess the safety and effec.veness of medica.ons. They usually lack the exper.se to evaluate manufacturing standards, poten.al contaminants, or the accuracy of the claimed therapeu.c effects. Consequently, they place significant trust in the hands of drug regulatory officers who are tasked with rigorous scru.ny and approval processes. The assurance of quality and efficacy relies on the diligence and integrity of these officers in upholding regulatory standards. The decisions made by drug controllers/inspectors directly impact pa.ent well-being, highligh.ng the cri.cal role these regulatory bodies play in safeguarding public health and ensuring that the medica.ons available to pa.ents meet the required standards for safety and effec.veness.
12. The pe..oner, entrusted with the responsibility to discharge his du.es honestly 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2023 03:52:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171 CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023 -6- and sincerely, instead sought a bribe to withdraw the no.ce on deficiencies, rather than insis.ng on the necessary correc.ons and closure of non-compliant establishments. The prevalence of paying bribes to overlook deficiencies is not uncommon, as higher profit margins oMen result in increased disposable income. However, a glimmer of hope arises from the fact that some.mes, human nature rebels against corrup.on. Entrepreneurs, driven by a commitment to public welfare, are willing to jeopardize their businesses. Gran.ng an.cipatory bail to the pe..oner could poten.ally embolden corrup.on within the Drugs Control Department and the medical sector, discouraging those with ethical integrity and undermining the efforts of bold individuals and whistleblowers commi7ed to the public good.
13. The prosecu.on has gathered sufficient prima facie evidence involving the pe..oner and custodial interroga.on is required to get further evidence about illicit conspiracy between the pe..oner and co-accused Ashok Narula and also to unearth the role of any other persons which may have been involved. An analysis of the allega.ons and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the pe..oner.
14. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Supreme Court holds, [5]. ....The en.re community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be commi7ed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is commi7ed with cool calcula.on and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfei.ng the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer jus.ce in an even-handed manner without fear of cri.cism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the na.onal economy and na.onal interest....."
15. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds, [6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interroga.on is qualita.vely more elicita.on oriented than ques.oning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Sec.on 438 of the code. In a case like this effec.ve interroga.on of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informa.ons and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interroga.on would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the .me he interrogated. Very oMen interroga.on in such a condi.on would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interroga.on is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
16. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court holds, [19]. Parameters for grant of an.cipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be sa.sfied and further while gran.ng such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. An.cipatory bail can 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2023 03:52:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171 CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023 -7- be granted only in excep.onal circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].
17. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Supreme Court holds, [34]. Economic offences cons.tute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the ma7er of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affec.ng the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
[35]. While gran.ng bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusa.ons, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which convic.on will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considera.ons.
18. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, Supreme Court holds, [70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legisla.ve intent behind the introduc.on of Sec.on 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant an.cipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Ar.cle 21 of the Cons.tu.on of India.
19. In Central Bureau of Inves.ga.on v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated 17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sec.ons under Sec.ons 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Preven.on of Corrup.on Act, 1988, holds, [24]. The .me−tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of an.cipatory bail. The judicial discre.on of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Ar.cle 21 of the Cons.tu.on and the need for a fair and free inves.ga.on, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devasta.ng and irreversible social s.gma, humilia.on, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on considera.on of material informa.on gathered by the Inves.ga.ng Agency, is prima facie sa.sfied that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the inves.ga.on, more so when the allega.ons are grave in nature.
[31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corrup.on poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2023 03:52:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171 CRM-M No. 53319 of 2023 -8- tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percola.ng under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corrup.on is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious.
20. In the background of the allega.ons and the light of the judicial precedents men.oned above in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe..oner fails to make a case for an.cipatory bail.
21. Any observa.on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.
Pe..on dismissed. Interim order dated 19.10.2023 stand vacated. All pending applica.ons, if any, also stand disposed.
01.12.2023 (ANOOP CHITKARA)
Jyo. Sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : YES
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153171
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2023 03:52:01 :::