Amit Kumar Gupta vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The primary issue revolved around the applicant's entitlement to anticipatory bail, particularly in light of his defense under Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and his disclosure of the distributor's details. The Court considered the submissions of both parties. The applicant's plea that he acted without mens rea and with reasonable diligence, coupled with the fact that he provided the particulars of the supplier, weighed in his favor. The State's admission that the applicant had properly disclosed the distributor's information further supported the applicant's position. The Court found the nature of the accusation and the evidence on record to be such that anticipatory bail was appropriate. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to several conditions including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, appearing on all dates, and not involving himself in similar offenses.

Facts

The applicant, Amit Kumar Gupta, proprietor of Jan Aushadhi Medical Store, is seeking anticipatory bail. The case stems from a sample of Ibuprofen Tablets, Batch No.01019-BJA36, taken on 15.07.2019 by a Drug Inspector. The sample was found to be substandard due to failing IP tests for Dissolution. The applicant disclosed the particulars of the distributor from whom the medicines were procured and submitted a GST invoice dated 12.07.2019 as proof of purchase. Despite this, bailable warrants were issued against the applicant, and an anticipatory bail application before the lower court was rejected. The applicant claims he is merely a witness and not an accused, asserting a lack of mens rea under Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering his plea under Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the fact that he disclosed the source of the substandard drug? Petitioner's Argument: The applicant argues that he acted with due diligence, did not have knowledge that the drug contravened the provisions of the Act, and therefore lacks the necessary mens rea. He contends he is essentially a witness and has been falsely implicated. He relies on Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which provides a defense for persons who acquired the drug without knowledge of contravention. Respondent's Argument: The State opposes the bail application. However, when queried, the State counsel conceded that the applicant had properly disclosed the particulars of the distributor from whom the medicines were procured.