Mukesh Saini vs. State

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. Regarding the definition of 'spurious drug', the Court found that it was not necessary for the drug to be first subjected to chemical examination; it could be deemed spurious if any of the clauses under Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, were satisfied. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 36 AC of the Act, specifically the requirement of reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty and was unlikely to commit further offences. The Court observed that the petitioner was prima facie involved in the manufacture and supply of spurious drugs, constituting a heinous crime affecting public life. The Court also noted the petitioner's alleged non-cooperation with the investigation despite being granted interim bail, stating that his custodial interrogation was necessary. Therefore, granting anticipatory bail was likely to hamper the investigation and was not in the larger public interest. The Court dismissed the bail application and withdrew the interim protection.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Saini, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, concerning the sale of spurious drugs. The Drugs Inspector, HQ Baddi, received information about spurious drugs being transported by M/s Magnatek Enterprises. Upon interception, a large stock of spurious drugs was recovered from a godown. GST invoices and e-way bills issued by M/s Magnatek Enterprises were found, but the drugs listed did not match the actual recovered stock. During the search of M/s Magnatek Enterprises, scrap of spurious drugs was found dumped near the premises, allegedly on the directions of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a notice to join the investigation. Subsequent investigations revealed a complex network of transactions involving other firms, with drugs being falsely billed and not physically supplied. Analysis confirmed that recovered drugs were not genuine products of the claimed manufacturers. The petitioner was granted interim bail but allegedly did not cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of manufacturing and supplying spurious drugs, considering the twin conditions under Section 36 AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which require the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, through his senior counsel, argued that the complaint was filed to settle scores against him, implying a malicious prosecution. He contended that the definition of 'spurious drug' under the Act requires chemical examination, which had not been completed. He also argued that the twin conditions for bail were not met by the prosecution. Respondent's arguments: The State, through the Additional Advocate General, argued that the petitioner was knowingly involved in the manufacture and supply of spurious drugs, jeopardizing innocent lives, and that the offences were heinous. They contended that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was necessary for a proper investigation and that his non-cooperation with the investigating agency, despite interim bail, demonstrated a lack of remorse and a potential to hamper the investigation. They emphasized that the definition of spurious drugs did not necessitate prior chemical examination.