Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the application for bail. The Court considered the fact that other co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail in Crime No. 715/2022, which was registered on the same day and time for other cough syrups seized. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant possessed a valid license for purchasing drugs, a fact verified by the prosecution. The Court also found it significant that the State counsel could not explain why two separate crime numbers were registered when the entire seizure was made from the same place and at the same time. The Court directed the applicant's release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to his cooperation in the investigation and trial, submission of documents when required, and compliance with Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

The applicant, Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma, proprietor of AV Pharma, a medical shop, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. He was in custody since January 19, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 718/2022 registered at P.S. Jamodi, District Sidhi, for offences under the NDPS Act, 1985, and the M.P. Drugs Control Act, 1949. The prosecution alleged that 960 bottles of Onrex cough syrup were recovered from eight sacks below a bridge on November 19, 2022, based on informant information, and these bottles belonged to the applicant. The applicant claimed false implication, stating he was implicated based on a co-accused's memorandum. He presented his medical shop registration and license to purchase medicines, which the State did not dispute. He also stated he purchased the medicines using GST No.BPYPV9863GIZT, and the vehicle was stopped on the National Highway, not recovered from below the bridge. The applicant also pointed out that two cases were registered on the same day and time from the same location, which the State could not explain.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly concerning the alleged recovery of cough syrup and the applicant's possession of a valid medical shop license and GST registration? The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and that his medical shop registration and license to purchase medicines were valid and not disputed by the State. He contended that the medicines were purchased using his GST number and that the recovery narrative was fabricated. He also highlighted the anomaly of two separate crime numbers being registered for seizures made from the same place at the same time. The State, represented by the Dy. Govt. Advocate, did not controvert the applicant's submissions regarding the validity of his licenses and the lack of explanation for the two separate crime numbers. The State was unable to demonstrate how two distinct crime numbers were registered when the entire seizure was made from the same location and at the same time.