Surender Malik vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the interim order granting protection to the applicant was not liable to be made absolute. The Court reasoned that the applicant had joined the investigation but was not revealing true facts to the Drugs Inspector. It emphasized the seriousness of the offence of manufacturing and supplying spurious drugs, noting its multi-dimensional impact on society. The Court found that making the interim order absolute would send a wrong signal to society. It also considered the applicant's failure to submit manufacturing, packaging, and sale invoice records for nutraceutical products to M/s MH Pharma as a factor disentitling him from the relief. The investigation was at a crucial stage, and the apprehensions of the Drugs Inspector were considered not unfounded. Therefore, the bail application was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Surender Malik, filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving the manufacturing and sale of spurious drugs. The Drugs Inspector filed a complaint alleging that Mohit Bansal was involved in manufacturing spurious drugs at Baddi and selling them from his godown in Agra. The applicant claimed he had made a complaint against Mohit Bansal for cheating and forgery related to false bills from his firm, M/s Ackley Formulations, and that he had been falsely implicated. The prosecution detailed a large recovery of spurious medicines from a vehicle owned by Mohit Bansal and subsequent searches of his godown, manufacturing premises, shop, and residence, leading to the arrest of several individuals. The applicant's firm, M/s Ackley Formulations, was identified as a supplier, and the applicant was contacted but did not join the investigation initially. GST returns for M/s Ackley Formulations showed only one sale invoice to M/s MH Pharma, Agra, during April to September 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim protection granted to the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is liable to be made absolute? The applicant argued that he had made a complaint against the main accused for cheating and forgery and was falsely implicated, having no connection to the spurious drug case. He asserted his status as a permanent resident with deep societal roots. The respondent (Drugs Inspector) contended that the applicant had not disclosed details of other accused involved in raw material transportation and that his custodial interrogation was necessary. They also pointed out that the applicant was not revealing true facts despite joining the investigation and that the seriousness of the offence warranted denying anticipatory bail. The respondent highlighted that the applicant's firm, M/s Ackley Formulations, was involved in supplying materials, and GST returns indicated limited activity during a specific period.