Sunil Kumar vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the applicant's role was distinct from that of the co-accused who were granted bail. The Court noted that Yogesh Kumar was granted bail because Section 36(AC) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was not applicable to him, and Rajni Bhargava was released considering the proviso for special circumstances for women. The Court found specific allegations against the applicant, including his presence during the packaging of spurious drugs, payment of overtime to workers, and the placement of orders for printing packaging material for spurious drugs through his firm. The Court also considered the transfer of a significant sum of money from the applicant to a co-accused. The Court reasoned that granting bail in such a serious offense would send a wrong signal to society. The Court concluded that the conditions for granting bail under Section 36(AC) of the Act were not met in favor of the applicant, and the material on record, particularly the bank statements, contradicted the applicant's claim of having nothing to do with the offense. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to the relief of bail.

Facts

The applicant, Sunil Kumar, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, apprehending arrest in a case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Drugs Inspector received information about the seizure of spurious medicines in Varanasi, which led to an investigation involving Rajni Bhargava, who operated a manufacturing unit named 'M/s Cyper Pharma' in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. During the search of M/s Cyper Pharma, various packing materials and drugs were found, some of which were expired. Further investigation revealed that expired drugs were purchased from M/s Sarvesh Jee Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged that the firm was involved in repacking spurious drugs. Rajni Bhargava was arrested on 24.05.2023. Subsequently, the premises were inspected again, and a huge stock of spurious products and non-standard quality drugs was recovered. Allegations against the applicant include procuring printing of packaging material for spurious drugs and paying overtime to workers involved in packaging. The applicant's previous application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant claims innocence, deep roots in society, and parity with co-accused Rajni Bhargava and Yogesh Kumar, who were granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of involvement in the procurement and printing of packaging material for spurious drugs and payment of overtime to workers involved in the packaging of such drugs. Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is innocent and not directly or indirectly connected to the alleged crime. - He is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh with deep societal roots and is the sole breadwinner of his family. - He seeks parity with co-accused Rajni Bhargava and Yogesh Kumar, whose bail applications were allowed by this Court. - He is ready to abide by any undertakings given to the Court. Respondent's Arguments: - The applicant's role is distinct from that of Yogesh Kumar and Rajni Bhargava, making the parity argument invalid. Yogesh Kumar's bail was granted as Section 36(AC) was not applicable, and Rajni Bhargava was released under a proviso for women. - Specific allegations against the applicant include his presence during the packaging of spurious drugs and payment of overtime to workers, supported by a witness statement. - The applicant has not joined the investigation despite notices. - The applicant placed the order for printing packaging material for spurious drugs through his proprietary firm M/s S.S. Remedies. - The applicant transferred Rs. 2,44,000/- to co-accused Rajni Bhargava via UPI. - Granting bail would send a wrong signal to society given the seriousness of the offense.