Suraj Shat vs. The State Nct Of Delhi

Facts

The petitioner, Suraj Shat, sought regular bail in FIR No. 59/2024, registered under various sections of the IPC, including those related to cheating, criminal breach of trust, and endangering life. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused Viphil Jain, was involved in manufacturing and selling spurious anti-cancer medicines. They were found filling empty vials of expensive anti-cancer drugs with cheaper antifungal injections. The investigation revealed a syndicate involved in this racket, leading to the recovery of significant amounts of cash, spurious medicines worth approximately Rs. 4 Crores, and the freezing of bank accounts and property. The petitioner has been in custody since March 12, 2024, and a chargesheet has been filed.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Suraj Shat. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since March 12, 2024, and the matter was at the stage of charge consideration. It was observed that the evidence in the case is primarily documentary and already in police custody, making the possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence remote. Furthermore, the Court considered that most witnesses are official witnesses, reducing the likelihood of the petitioner influencing them. The Court also took into account that other similarly placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail. Based on these factors and the totality of the circumstances, the Court directed the applicant's release on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and adhering to specific conditions including not leaving the NCT of Delhi without permission, attending all court proceedings, reporting to the police station weekly, keeping mobile numbers operational, not indulging in the medicine business until trial completion, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were for the purpose of the bail application and not an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the serious nature of the alleged offences, including manufacturing and selling spurious anti-cancer medicines, which pose a threat to public health and life, as per Sections 274, 275, 276, 308, 406, and 420 of the IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been in custody since March 12, 2024, a chargesheet has been filed, and the case is at the stage of charge consideration. He contended that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in further custody and that the evidence is primarily documentary, making tampering unlikely. He also pointed to other similarly placed co-accused who have been granted bail. Respondent's (State) Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner, along with Viphil Jain, is the mastermind of the racket. They highlighted the existence of incriminating WhatsApp chats between the accused and indicated that a supplementary chargesheet is likely to be filed concerning voice samples. The State asserted that the offences are serious and, given the petitioner's alleged role, he does not deserve bail.