Govind Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Govind Kumar Gupta, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 91 of 2021. The charges include offenses under the N.D.P.S. Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, I.P.C., and Copyright Act. The applicant operates a medical shop with a valid license and GST registration. He contends he was falsely implicated, that the recovered drugs were stored at his residence, and that he possessed relevant documentation for storage and sale. He also claims no incriminating substance was found at his residence, he was not present during the raid, and there was non-compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, with no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant has been in jail since August 17, 2021.

Held

The Court, having regard to the submissions made by the applicant and without commenting on the merits of the case, was of the opinion that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail. The Court noted the applicant's contentions regarding his valid licenses, GST registration, the nature of the recovered items, his absence during the raid, and the alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The Court found that the learned AGA could not satisfactorily dispute these submissions from the record. Consequently, the applicant, Govind Kumar Gupta, was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The bail was granted subject to conditions including appearance on fixed dates, not tampering with evidence, and not pressuring witnesses. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2021, considering the alleged offenses under the N.D.P.S. Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, I.P.C., and Copyright Act. Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated. He possesses a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, and GST registration for his medical shop. He asserted that the recovered drugs were stored at his residence, for which he had legal authority and documentation. He further contended that no incriminating substance was found at his residence, he was not present during the raid, and there was a lack of strong motive for his involvement. Crucially, he raised concerns about the non-compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the absence of an independent witness to the alleged recovery. His criminal history has been explained, and he has been incarcerated since August 17, 2021. Contentions of the Opposite Party (State): The learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the submissions made by the applicant from the record.