Dinesh vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. It was held that, prima facie, the applicants were partners with valid licenses to sell drugs. The Court noted that the drugs were purchased from a registered pharmaceutical company after payment of GST. While the knowledge of the drugs being sub-standard is a matter of evidence, the Court found that the applicants, having purchased the drugs with a valid license from a registered company after paying GST, presented a fit case for bail at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case. The applicants were directed to be released on bail upon executing personal bonds and furnishing sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
Facts
This case involves a bail application filed by Dinesh and Girish Snehi, who are accused in FIR No. 665 of 2020. The FIR was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The applicants, who are sellers of drugs, argue they have been falsely implicated. They claim to possess valid licenses for selling drugs and have been in jail since December 5, 2020. They assert that the drugs in question were purchased from a registered pharmaceutical company after paying GST, and they were unaware of any sub-standard quality. They are prepared to furnish sureties for bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicants, accused of offenses under the IPC and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, are entitled to be released on bail, considering their status as sellers with valid licenses and their claim of purchasing drugs after GST payment from a registered company, and lacking prior criminal history? Arguments for the applicants: The applicants contend they are falsely implicated, possess valid licenses to sell drugs, have been incarcerated since December 5, 2020, and have no criminal antecedents. They emphasize that the drugs were procured from a registered pharmaceutical company after payment of GST and that they had no knowledge of the drugs being sub-standard. They are willing to provide sureties for bail. Arguments for the State: The learned State counsel opposed the bail application but conceded that the accused were sellers.
Sections Cited
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
BA1 No.15 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Dy. A.G. along with Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Accused–Dinesh and Girish Snehi have sought their release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.665 of 2020, u/s 419, 420, 120-B, 307 of IPC and 17, 17(a), 18, 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, registered at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar.
It is argued that the accused have been falsely implicated; they are sellers having valid license; they are languishing in jail since 05.12.2020; there is no criminal history against them; it is also submitted that the drugs mentioned in the FIR were purchased by the accused from registered pharmaceutical company; it was not in their knowledge that the above drugs were sub-standard; they purchased the drugs from a registered pharmaceutical company after payment of GST; they are ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail.
Learned State
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.