Sandeep Ramdas Varpe And Anr vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

These applications for anticipatory bail concern a criminal case registered for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 473 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged by a Drug Inspector alleging that a patient died due to a spurious injection supplied by the applicants, who are distributors of pharmaceuticals. In ABA No. 345 of 2023, the applicants are partners of M/s. Shree Siddhivanayak Pharma. In ABA No. 2320 of 2023, the applicant is the proprietor of M/s. Golu Pharma. The prosecution alleges that the applicants sold drugs at prices significantly below their purchase price. Interim bail was granted to the applicants in both applications. The applicants have since appeared before the investigating officer and cooperated with the investigation. The court noted that the FIR implicates multiple entities in the manufacture, distribution, and handling of the drug.

Held

The Court held that the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that the question of whether the particular drug that led to the adverse drug reaction originated from the applicants is a matter for investigation and would ultimately be a question for adjudication at the trial. The Court noted that the FIR implicates as many as 12 persons/entities involved in the drug's chain. Considering the nature of the accusation, the reasons for granting interim bail, and the core question for adjudication at trial, the Court found that further custodial interrogation of the applicants was not warranted. Consequently, the orders of interim bail were made absolute. The Court clarified that these prima facie observations were confined to determining the entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No. 08 of 2023 registered for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 473 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that they have cooperated with the investigation and that the question of whether the specific drug causing the adverse reaction originated from them is a matter for investigation and eventual adjudication at trial. They also pointed out that other distributors implicated in the FIR have been granted similar protection by the court. Respondent's (State of Maharashtra) Arguments: The State contended that an arrested accused disclosed that the injections in question were supplied by one of the applicants. The State also highlighted that the FIR itself indicates drugs were supplied by various suppliers, and the specific origin of the drug causing the adverse reaction is a matter for investigation.