Mukesh Saini vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions for grant of bail under Section 36 AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Regarding the contention that the drugs were of standard quality, the Court noted that the definition of 'spurious drugs' under Section 17B is very wide and includes drugs manufactured under a false name, imitation, substitute, or purported to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product. The Court found that it was not necessary for a drug to be subjected to chemical examination to be deemed spurious; satisfaction of any clause under Section 17B would suffice. The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner was entitled to bail simply because the investigation was complete, citing the seriousness of the offense and the petitioner's alleged knowing involvement in the manufacture and transportation of spurious drugs, which jeopardized innocent lives. The Court also dismissed the plea for bail on medical grounds, stating that the ailment was not severe enough to warrant release and that the petitioner could receive treatment in custody. The Jail Superintendent was directed to provide necessary medical treatment and arrange for external medical care if required, with permission for a family member to attend. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Saini, sought regular bail in a case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Drugs Inspector, Baddi, received information about the sale of spurious drugs by M/s Magnatek Enterprises. Upon investigation, a large stock of spurious drugs was recovered from a transport godown. GST invoices and e-way bills issued by M/s Magnatek Enterprises were found, but the drugs listed did not match the physical stock. Further investigation led to the recovery of scrap of spurious drugs near M/s Magnatek Enterprises, allegedly on the directions of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a notice to join the investigation. Statements recorded indicated that the drugs were transported from M/s Magnatek Enterprises. Verification of sale invoices in Delhi revealed that the premises of M/s Sai Medical Agency were closed. M/s Evo Life Sciences, Rohtak, stated that material was directly sent to Delhi and that sales were managed by another director. M/s Geet Enterprises, Lucknow, only received GST invoices. An authorized signatory of M/s Mankind Pharma Ltd. confirmed that the recovered drugs were counterfeit. Consignments of spurious drugs were also recovered from a transport corporation in Delhi. The petitioner argued that analysis reports declared the samples to be of standard quality, not spurious.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 36 AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, considering the definition of 'spurious drugs' under Section 17B of the Act? The petitioner contended that analysis reports from the government analyst declared the samples to be of standard quality and not spurious, thus entitling him to bail. The petitioner also argued that he had undergone police remand, investigation was complete, and nothing remained to be recovered. Furthermore, he claimed to be suffering from a medical condition warranting bail. The respondent-State argued that the definition of 'spurious drugs' under Section 17B of the Act is broad and does not necessitate chemical examination. They contended that the petitioner was knowingly involved in the manufacture and transportation of spurious drugs, constituting a heinous crime affecting innocent citizens. The State also argued that the petitioner, being a resident of Haryana, might flee from justice if released on bail, and his medical condition did not preclude treatment in custody.