Dayanand Pandey vs. State Of Hp

Held

The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the GST registration and bank account, which showed numerous transactions with suppliers of medicines, were in the petitioner's name. The Court considered these documents, along with the petitioner's conduct, as evidence of his involvement in the illegal business of supplying prohibited drugs without a license and without proper bills. The fact that the batch numbers of drugs recovered from Satnam Singh matched those recovered from Deep Medicos further strengthened the prosecution's case. The Court also noted the petitioner's absconding behavior and subsequent declaration as a proclaimed offender, deeming it highly unbelievable that he was unaware of his implication, especially considering his brother's arrest and the information available in previous status reports. The Court concluded that it was not a fit case to exercise discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Dayanand Pandey, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 314 of 2021, registered under the NDPS Act. The case involved the recovery of prohibited drugs from co-accused Satnam Singh and subsequently from 'Deep Medicos' in Delhi, where the petitioner's brother, Parma Nand Pandey, was found to be in charge. Recoveries from Deep Medicos included Lomotil and Alprax tablets. The Drug Controller reported no valid license for Deep Medicos. While the shop owner, Virender Singh Tokas, was initially sought, he later claimed the shop was rented to the petitioner and his brother since 2016. The petitioner's GST registration and bank account were linked to Deep Medicos, with the petitioner identified as the proprietor in the GST registration. Despite being informed of his implication, the petitioner remained untraceable, leading to him being declared a proclaimed offender. The petitioner claimed he was merely a helper until 2019 and not involved in the business.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Dayanand Pandey, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC, considering his alleged involvement in the illegal business of supplying prohibited drugs, as evidenced by GST registration and bank account details in his name, and his subsequent absconding and being declared a proclaimed offender? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was only a helper in the shop until 2019 and not the owner, licensee, or tenant. He contended that the GST number was obtained by Virender Singh, and the bank account was opened at that time. He also pointed out discrepancies in the lease deed's dates. He claimed he was unaware of his implication until his brother informed him, and his subsequent failure to appear was due to believing he wouldn't be involved due to his separate business. Respondent's Arguments: The State argued that the GST number, lease deed, and bank account were in the petitioner's name, indicating his active role in the illegal business. They highlighted that transactions for supplying medicines were made from his bank account. The State also emphasized the petitioner's absconding behavior and being declared a proclaimed offender, along with the matching batch numbers of recovered drugs, making custodial interrogation necessary. They found it unbelievable that the petitioner was unaware of his involvement, especially given his brother's arrest and the information in previous status reports.