Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 569 (RAJ)

Vinay Mangal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-17

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
ORDER : 1. This 3rd bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 328/2019 Registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 476, 120-B IPC and Sections, 17B(e), 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 18A, 27A, 27(b)(ii) and 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars for more than 1 year and 7 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that previously petitioner was enlarged on bail by the trial court. After that, M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. had filed the bail cancellation application before this Court and this Court had cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court. After that, petitioner had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and gave liberty to file a fresh after change of the circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the police after completion of investigation has filed the charge-sheet. In charge-sheet as many as 34 witnesses were shown but only one witness PW1-Vachan Singh Meena was examined by the trial court till today and conclusion of trial may take long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that co-accused Sandeep Tyagi has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.05.2020 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1532/2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The present FIR was lodged after a delay of one month. Seizing Officer Sindhu Kumari was trapped by the ACD Department for taking bribe. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the FSL report, seized tablets were not found in conformity with the original tablet Losal-H prepared/manufactured by M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the lab report, nothing injurious was found in the analysis and sample was not found adulterated. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Seizing Officer PW1-Wachan Singh Meena also admitted the fact that lab report did not bear that seized drugs were spurious. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Seizing Officer PW1-Wachan Singh Meena also admitted the fact that lab report did not bear that seized drugs were spurious. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had purchased all the tablets of Losal-H from a registered firm M/s Ganpati Enterprises of Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is wholesaler of the medicines. There is no evidence that petitioner had ever manufactured these drugs. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that PW1-Vachan Singh Meena in his cross-examination admitted the fact that petitioner had purchased all the medicines from M/s Ganpati Enterprises of Delhi. Petitioner had submitted the bills as well as bank details of bank account by which payment was made. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 5075/2017 decided on 08.06.2017; (2) Harider Ali v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17379/2021 decided on 27.09.2022; (3) Mohammed Abeer Khan v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6276/2021 decided on 13.05.2021; (4) Dr. Jitesh Arora v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12581/2021 decided on 08.09.2021; (5) Shiv Kumar v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 1218/2016 decided on 05.02.2016; (6) Rafiq Khan v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 1219/2016 decided on 05.02.2016; (7) Sandeep Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1532/2020 decided on 04.05.2020 and (8) Neena Gupta v. Ut of Ladakh in CRM (M) No. 01/2021 decided on 04.08.2022. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant as well as Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner had sold the spurious tablet of Losal-H which was not manufactured by the M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. As per the lab report, these tablets were not found in conformity with the original tablet Losal-H manufactured by M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant also submits that petitioner and co-accused Bhupendra were playing with the health of the people and they sold the spurious drugs to various persons. Huge stocks were seized from petitioner's shop. Learned senior counsel for the complainant also submits that bail of the co-accused Bhupendra was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that Hon'ble Apex Court had granted liberty to the petitioner for filing the bail application after change of the circumstances but in the present case circumstances have not been changed for filing the fresh bail application because as per the statement of Vachan Singh, case of the prosecution fully proved. Learned senior counsel for the complainant also submits that during the search of the petitioner's shop, co-accused Bhupendra had submitted the license cancellation application online. This also shows that petitioner and Bhupendra had connivance in selling the spurious medicines. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, bail be dismissed. 5. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118 . 6. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the 3rd bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vinay Mangal S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Mangal be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he will appear before the trial court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.