Jonny Mehta vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Jonny Mehta, a partner in M/s Multitask Pharma, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. The case involved the sale of drugs found to be of "not standard quality." Specifically, two drug samples purchased from the petitioner's firm were deficient in active ingredients. The petitioner provided purchase bills and e-way bills dated 24.12.2023 from M/s HM Medicare, Vikas Nagar, Rohtak. However, inquiries revealed that no such firm existed at the given address, and the manufacturer M/s JMH Pharma, Bhagwanpur, Haridwar, also did not exist. The co-accused, Sumit Kumar, was arrested for selling spurious drugs. The petitioner contended that the complaint was an abuse of process, lacking cogent material. The State opposed anticipatory bail, alleging the purchase documents were anti-dated and forged.

Held

The Court held that the petition for anticipatory bail deserved to be allowed. The Court found the submissions of the learned State counsel unconvincing to decline the grant of anticipatory bail. While the State argued that the supplier M/s H.M. Medicare did not exist and the documents were forged, the Court was not persuaded by these arguments to deny bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the overall assessment of the material presented and the petitioner's contention of having valid documentation, despite the State's counter-arguments regarding the non-existence of the supplier. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on anticipatory bail, subject to joining the investigation within one week and furnishing personal/surety bonds. The petitioner was also directed to abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, including making himself available for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, and not leaving India without court permission. The order would stand cancelled if the petitioner failed to comply with the direction to join the investigation within the stipulated period. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, considering the allegations of selling spurious drugs and the purported forged purchase documents? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that M/s Multitask Pharma is a validly registered business with GST No. 06ABWFM0911H1Z6, operating with authorized partners. He claimed to possess valid purchase and e-way bills for the questioned drugs, asserting that the lodging of the complaint case was an abuse of process due to a lack of incriminating evidence. The petitioner relied on Annexure P-2 (GST registration) and Annexure P-4 (purchase and e-way bill). Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State opposed anticipatory bail, contending that the alleged supplier, M/s H.M. Medicare, Vikas Nagar, Rohtak, did not exist, and the purchase bills and e-way bills produced by the petitioner were anti-dated and forged. The State noted that postal correspondence indicated the non-existence of the firm. The State also highlighted a previous instance where the petitioner was involved in storing spurious drugs, for which he had obtained anticipatory bail, and the manufacturer was also allegedly M/s H.M. Medicare.