Bhola Prasad vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court denied the bail application. It considered that while the e-way bill indicated the purchase of 2,49,000 bottles of codeine syrup, the traceability reports suggested non-delivery to the applicant. The alleged sales to six other firms were found to be forged due to the absence of supporting documents and the non-recovery of stock from those firms. The Court noted that these firms had deposited Rs. 2.91 crores into the applicant's firm's account, which was then transferred to Saili Traders. Crucially, a large stock of bottles, purportedly purchased from Saili Traders by the applicant, was recovered in Tripura and West Bengal during illegal transportation for intoxication. Based on these findings, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Facts

The applicant, Bhola Prasad, sought bail in a criminal case. The prosecution alleged that the applicant's firm was inspected, and neither stock nor sale documents were found. An e-way bill indicated the transport of codeine-based cough syrup from M/s Saili Traders, Ranchi, to Ghazipur. However, toll plaza reports and the transporter's statement suggested no such delivery occurred in Ghazipur. A large consignment of the same batch was recovered in Siliguri and Agartala, allegedly for intoxication. The prosecution also claimed that six other firms, to whom the applicant allegedly sold the cough syrup, had not further sold the stock, nor was it found with them. These firms had transferred Rs. 2.91 crores to the applicant's firm, which was then transferred to M/s Saili Traders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, considering the allegations of large-scale diversion of codeine-based cough syrup for intoxication and the alleged forgery of sale documents, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the legal grounds for bail, beyond the general prayer for its grant. Revenue's (State's) arguments: The State argued that the inspection of the applicant's firm revealed no stock or sale documents. The e-way bill for the cough syrup consignment was found to be inconsistent with toll plaza traceability reports and the transporter's statement, indicating non-delivery at the stated destination. Furthermore, alleged sales to other firms were deemed forged as no supporting documents were produced, and the stock was not recovered from those firms. A significant portion of the purchased stock was recovered elsewhere, allegedly for intoxication. The State also highlighted the transfer of substantial funds from the applicant's firm to M/s Saili Traders.