Abhishek Suresh Belhekar vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed all three applications. For Abhishek Suresh Belhekar and Rakhi Santosh Totala, the Court granted anticipatory bail, noting the lack of material to infer their involvement in manufacturing spurious or misbranded drugs. The Court observed that while Abhishek might have obtained GST registration by providing incorrect information, this was a separate issue unconnected to the core allegations of manufacturing misbranded drugs. Rakhi's position as a retailer procuring from Abhishek was considered on even better footing, with no material suggesting collusion. For Santosh Sudamrao Dhondage, the Court granted regular bail, acknowledging his arrest and the filing of a charge sheet, and stating that considering the offences charged, he deserved release. The operative directions included releasing the applicants on personal recognizance and furnishing sureties, with conditions for attendance to the police station and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Facts

The case involves three applications before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, concerning Crime No. 95 of 2021 registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station. The FIR was lodged by a Drug Inspector who found adulterated 'Hand sanitizer' at the shop of applicant Rakhi Totala. Investigations revealed she purchased it from applicant Abhishek Belhekar, who in turn procured it from the manufacturer, applicant Santosh Dhondage. The charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer alleged offences under Sections 468, 420, 274, 276, 461 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, focusing on forgery and cheating due to misbranded drugs, while seemingly ignoring provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Santosh Dhondage, arrested on April 13, 2021, sought regular bail, while Rakhi Totala and Abhishek Belhekar sought anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants, Abhishek Suresh Belhekar and Rakhi Santosh Totala, are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of purchasing and selling misbranded drugs, and potential GST registration irregularities. 2. Whether the applicant, Santosh Sudamrao Dhondage, is entitled to regular bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given his arrest and the filing of a charge sheet for offences related to manufacturing and supplying misbranded drugs. Arguments for the Applicants: The applicants contended that the Investigating Officer improperly focused on Indian Penal Code provisions while overlooking the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. They argued that there was no material to suggest collusion in manufacturing spurious or misbranded drugs. Specifically, for Abhishek, it was noted that GST registration irregularities were a separate matter. For Rakhi, it was argued she was a retailer who procured the drug from Abhishek, with no evidence of complicity with the other two. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent-State regarding the bail applications.