Manoj vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicant on bail on the ground of parity. The Court noted that the accused had been in jail since February 13, 2019, and had served more than two and a half years. It was acknowledged that the accused purchased the chemical IPA from Shree Enterprises after payment of GST, and although this IPA could not be sold to private persons, the accused sold it to a private person. However, the Court found no evidence that the deceased directly purchased methanol from the accused. Prima facie, the Court observed that the accused committed offences under the Excise Act and Poisons Act, with maximum punishments of three years and one year respectively. Given the period already served, the enlargement of co-accused Amit Gupta on bail, and the identical role of the applicant, the Court deemed it a fit case for bail at this stage, without going into the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court, and to submit his passport, if any, to the court and not leave the country without prior permission.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by the accused, Manoj, in connection with FIR No. 0022 of 2019, registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Excise Act, and the Poisons Act. The petitioner has been in jail since February 13, 2019. The prosecution alleges a chain of sale involving a chemical, IPA, which was allegedly sold by M/s Aay Cee Cellulose Industries Pvt. Ltd. to Shree Enterprises, then to the present accused Manoj, who sold it to Arjun, and subsequently to villagers. The petitioner argues he has been falsely implicated, has served over two and a half years in jail, and seeks bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused, Amit Kumar Gupta, who was granted bail. The State opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Amit Kumar Gupta, considering their alleged identical roles in the commission of the offence under the Excise Act and Poisons Act? The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, is languishing in jail since February 13, 2019, and there is no evidence against him. He further contended that a co-accused, Amit Kumar Gupta, who was the owner of the industry involved, has been granted bail, and therefore, the applicant also deserves bail on the ground of parity. The petitioner relied on the fact that he purchased the chemical IPA from Shree Enterprises through documents after payment of GST, and that the maximum punishment under the Excise Act and Poisons Act is three years and one year respectively. The State, per contra, opposed the bail application. The State's counsel did not present specific arguments beyond opposing the bail, but the court noted that while the IPA could not be sold to private persons, the accused sold it to a private person. There was no evidence that the deceased directly purchased methanol from the accused.