Dinesh Sharma vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. Regarding the applicant's contention that the material supplied, such as Calcium Citrate Maleate, does not fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and is covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Court noted that while this aspect might be relevant, it would need to be proven or probabilized during the trial. Accepting this argument at the bail stage would amount to pre-judging the prosecution's case. The Court also observed that the recovered drugs were not of standard quality, and M/s Cipla Ltd. confirmed that drugs labeled as manufactured by them were spurious. The Court found that at this stage, there was nothing on record to fulfill the conditions mentioned in Section 36(AC) of the Act. The Court emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and the larger interest of society, considering the seriousness of the offense due to the large recovery of spurious drugs. The Court concluded that it could not be said at this stage that the applicant had not committed the offense or would not commit it again if released on bail. Therefore, the bail application was rejected. The Court also clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court's decision on the merits of the case.

Facts

The applicant, Dinesh Sharma, sought bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving spurious drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case originated from a search on November 22, 2022, where spurious drugs worth over ₹50 lakhs were recovered from Mohit Bansal. Subsequent searches of a godown and manufacturing premises revealed large quantities of spurious drugs, raw materials, and packaging material. Arrests were made, and disclosure statements implicated others. The applicant was implicated based on the statement of accused Mohammad Idreesh, who claimed to have procured raw material from the applicant, Director of M/s Stevels Pharma Ltd. The applicant asserted he acted only as a commission agent for M/s S.V. Pharmaceuticals, supplying materials like Calcium Citrate Maleate via proper invoices, and that this material falls under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and is exempted under Schedule K of Rule 123 of the Act. His earlier bail application was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Dinesh Sharma, is entitled to bail considering his alleged role as a supplier of raw material for spurious drugs, and the nature of the substances supplied, in light of Sections 18(a)(i), 18(c), 27(c), and 36(AC) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. - He acted solely as a commission agent for M/s S.V. Pharmaceuticals and supplied materials through proper invoices. - The material supplied, specifically Calcium Citrate Maleate, does not fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, but rather under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and is exempted under Schedule K of Rule 123. - The disclosure statement of Mohammad Idreesh, on which the applicant's implication is based, is inadmissible. - None of the main accused disclosed his name, indicating false implication. Respondent's Arguments: - The applicant is involved in a criminal conspiracy for manufacturing and distributing spurious drugs. - Manufacturing of drugs includes various processes, and the applicant's role in supplying raw material is crucial. - The applicant failed to join the investigation despite opportunities and was arrested after obtaining warrants, raising apprehension of non-availability for trial and re-indulgence. - The investigation regarding other accused, sale of spurious drugs, and source of raw material is ongoing. - The recovery of a large quantity of spurious drugs indicates the seriousness of the offense.