Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Aekansh Verma vs State Nct Of Delhi on 19 April, 2023

$~8
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        BAIL APPLN. 861/2023
         AEKANSH VERMA                                         ..... Petitioner
                     Through:           Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
                                        Mr. Jaspreet Singh Kapur,Mr. Naresh
                                        Mann, Ms. Neha Singh, Mr. Rahul
                                        Vats, mr. Niklesh Kumar, Mr. Harsh
                                        Gautam Advocates.
                       versus
         STATE NCT OF DELHI                                    ..... Respondent
                       Through:         Mr. Yudhivir Singh Chauhan, APP for
                                        the State with Insp. Kamal Kumar
                                        with ASI Gulab Singh, PS Crime
                                        Branch, ND.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
                           ORDER

% 19.04.2023

1. This petition has been filed for regular bail in FIR No. 260/2022 PS Crime Branch under Section 274/275/276/420/468/471/120-B/308/201/34 IPC. The petitioner has been in custody since 16th November, 2011 and the charge-sheet has already been filed as per the Status Report filed by the State. On the basis of the information received on 18th November, 2022 regarding one Dr. Pabitra Pradhan, who allegedly along with his associates was indulging in manufacturing selling of spurious life saving medicines to patients suffering from cancer. On the basis of the investigation, further information was received regarding two other persons who used to package the spurious medicines.

2. It was further revealed that on the directions of Dr. Pabitra Pradhan his associates used to deliver spurious medicines to different locations in Delhi.

3. Pursuant to an interception, certain medicines were recovered from the search of accused Pankaj Singh Bohra. Subsequently, Dr. Pabitra and other accomplices were arrested. The investigation revealed that for this purpose they procure raw material from different sources and used to get tablets and capsules prepared from one Harbir resident of Murthal Sonipat, Haryana. This person Ram Kumar@ Harbir who was a resident of Sonipat was arrested who was found running a manufacturing unit and he disclosed that he used maize starch power & calcium carbonate and used to procure the strips & foil printing from Dehradun. He disclosed that he used to collect the empty shells capsules in the name of Incepta Company from the petitioner who was resident of Zirakpur, Punjab which he filled using his own machines. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested. It also transpired that the petitioner used his registered online platform from India Mart for supply of these drugs sourced from Dr. Pabitra.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has stated that as regards the empty shell capsules which were requisitioned by the petitioner, it was done merely as a trading activity since the petitioner runs his own company called Mediyork Pharma Pvt. Ltd. which has a GST number and has drawn attention to various GST invoices of March 2022, as per which her, hard gelatine capsules shells have been ordered on behalf of Incept Biotech Pvt. Ltd., which is apparently the company of/related to Dr. Pabitra. These invoices would show, as per learned Senior Counsel, that there was no surreptitious activity which was being indulged into by the petitioner but he was merely executing a requisition for these capsules as a business activity. Further, as regards the distribution on India Mart, learned Senior Counsel stated that the registered online platform was for distribution of pharma products of the petitioner had accordingly amongst other products, had chosen to supply these products as well, bona fide. He also submits that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANISH DAYAL others who had sold the said spurious drug and collected money on behalf of Dr. Pabitra have not been arrested and not being made accused as well. He also seeks bail on grounds of the parity since the other accused Prabhat Kumar from whom some recovery had been made has been granted bail, as well as Sahid who was accused of making the packaging for the drugs, has also been granted bail.

5. Learned APP for the State refutes the contentions of the petitioner and draws attention to the impugned order dated 15th February, 2023, where learned ASJ has recorded the various aspects regarding the role of the petitioner. Learned APP stress on the facts that the petitioner had his own pharma company, therefore with his knowledge and experience of pharma sector, he cannot be stated to have not known regarding these spurious medicines. Learned ASJ having considered the contentions of the parties concluded that there was no explanation as to why petitioner would purchase empty capsule shell in such a large quantity and therefore, could not be considered as not involved in manufacture of spurious drugs.

6. Having considering the contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that considering chargesheet has already been filed and trial will take long time to progress, there would be no purpose in keeping the petitioner in custody. The role of the petitioner would be in question and a benefit of doubt would have to be given at this stage considering the contentions recorded above, inter alia that the petitioner is 27 years of age, started his own pharma trading business, these transactions were formal in that there were tax invoices, and that the distribution was on the public online platform India Mart. The prosecution would have to prove their case during trial for the guilt of the accused.

7. The petitioner is already on interim bail for a period of two weeks by order dated 12th April, 2023 due to serious episode of the brain stroke of his Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANISH DAYAL father which was verified by the State. The issue is whether the petitioner can be granted regular bail while he is on interim bail granted by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out two decisions inter alia Roop Chand Bajaj v. State ILR (2009) Delhi 18 and Nitin Chawla v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) SCC OnLine Del 7570 to state that this Court has already taken the opinion that regular bails can be considered when the accused is out on the interim bail.

8. Upon considering the above decisions, the presence of the petitioner was directed and the petitioner was later present in person before the Court.

9. In light of the view taken by this Court in Roop Chand Bajaj v. State (supra), the technical objection regarding the presence of the accused is therefore taken care of. Reference is also made to Nitin Chawla vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) where the petitioner being on interim bail was considered for granting regular bail.

10. Ld. APP states on instructions of the IO that a supplementary charge-sheet may have to be filed due to further investigation. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the IO in case he is summoned for any further investigation.

11. In light of the above, and that the trial in the matter is likely to take some time, and it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court, further subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

ii. Petitioner shall provide permanent address to the Ld. Trial Court. The petitioner shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IO regarding any change in residential address.

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.

iv. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the IO concerned.

v. Petitioner shall provide all mobile numbers to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not switch off or change the mobile number without prior intimation to the IO concerned. The mobile location be kept on at all times. vi. Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses, the complainant/victim or any member of the complainant/victim's family or tamper with the evidence of the case. Needless to state, but any observation touching the merits of the case is purely for the purposes of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression on merits of the matter.

12. Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.

13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications (if any) are disposed of as infructuous.

ANISH DAYAL, J APRIL 19, 2023/RK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANISH DAYAL