Vansh Kesharwani vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Vansh Kesharwani, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The prosecution's case stems from an inspection of Nagpur Golden Transport, where transport documents and a GST bill related to medicines supplied by Maa Bijasan Medicos, Indore, to Saraswati Medical Store, Sarangarh, were examined. Certain medicines were suspected to be sub-standard, seized, and confirmed as such by the State Drug Laboratory. Subsequently, the medical store of the applicant's father, Khemram Bani, was inspected, and the applicant's mobile phone was examined. A photograph of the cover of one of the seized medicines was found on the applicant's phone. The prosecution alleges the applicant was involved in the sale and purchase of sub-standard medicines with co-accused. No FIR was registered, and the matter was under investigation with a complaint proposed to be filed.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. While acknowledging the prosecution's allegation that the applicant was connected with the business of sale and purchase of sub-standard medicines, based on the photograph found on his mobile phone during the inspection of his father's medical store, the Court considered the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents. Without making any definitive comments on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond with a surety, not to induce or threaten anyone, not to act prejudicially to a fair trial, to appear before the trial court on all dates, submit identity documents, and not involve himself in similar offences in the future.

Key Issues

1. Whether the presence of a photograph of a sub-standard medicine's cover on the applicant's mobile phone, without further evidence of his direct involvement in the sale or distribution, is sufficient to establish his connection to the alleged offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contended that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He argued that the medical store has operated for over 30 years with a valid drug license in his father's name. The sole allegation against him is the photograph on his mobile, which does not prove his involvement in selling or distributing sub-standard medicines. He asserted there is no material to show his engagement in the business of manufacturing, supplying, or selling such medicines. Revenue's arguments: The State counsel opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.