Amit Kumar Gupta vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court found that the applicant had served more than two years in jail, which exceeded the maximum punishment under the Excise Act (three years) and the Poisons Act (one year). While acknowledging that the applicant's company lacked a license to sell Methanol, it held a license for trading chemicals and drugs. The Court noted that the applicant's company sold Methanol to Shree Enterprises, which was subsequently sold to a private person and then distributed, leading to consumption. The Court also considered that 122 witnesses had been examined, and there was no longer a significant chance of evidence tampering. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the Court deemed it a fit case for bail at that stage. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties, submit his passport, and not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court.

Facts

The applicant, Amit Kumar Gupta, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 22 of 2019, registered under various sections of the IPC, Excise Act, and Poisons Act. The applicant, proprietor/director of M/s Aay Cee Cellulose Industries Pvt. Ltd., allegedly sold Methanol to Shree Enterprises via a bill, and GST was paid on this transaction. The prosecution alleged that Shree Enterprises then sold the Methanol to a co-accused, Manoj, who further distributed it to others, leading to consumption and death. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, had no concern with the crime, and had served over two years in jail. The State admitted the sale of Methanol by the applicant's company to Shree Enterprises via a bill and payment of GST. It was noted that while the company lacked a license to sell Methanol, it held a license for trading chemicals and drugs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the charges under the Excise Act and Poisons Act, and the period of custody served, despite the ongoing investigation and allegations of involvement in the distribution of poisonous Methanol? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 62 of the Excise Act and Sections 4, 5, 6(I)(a) of the Poisons Act). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, that there was no direct evidence against him, and that his company had legally sold Methanol to Shree Enterprises via a bill with GST paid. He contended he had no motive to kill and was unlikely to abscond. He also highlighted that he had already served more than two years in jail, exceeding the maximum punishments under the Excise Act (three years) and Poisons Act (one year). He relied on the fact that most key witnesses had been examined, reducing the chance of evidence tampering. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed bail but conceded that the applicant's company had sold Methanol to Shree Enterprises via a bill and that GST was paid. The State acknowledged that the applicant's company did not have a license to sell Methanol but possessed a license for trading chemicals and drugs. The State argued that the applicant committed an offense under the Excise Act and Poisons Act.