Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 780 (ALL)

Rajesh Swaroop @ Anil Patel v. State of U. P.

2023-03-22

DEEPAK VERMA

body2023
JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J. Supplementary affidavit, filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.288 of 2022, under Sections 274, 275, 276, 419, 420 IPC. and Section 102, 103 Trade Marks Act, 1958 and 18A Drugs and Cosmetics Act, P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that police informant on 2.9.2022 received information from informer that some accused persons engaged in selling duplicate medicines when informant arrested accused persons they recovered 50 packets J.J. Ultracet medicines B.NON 1939 G MFD 09/21 Expiry 08/23 from co-accused Sachin Sharma @ Gaurav Sharma and recovered 25 packets of J.J. Ultracet medicines B.NO N 1939 MFD 09/21 Expiry 08/23 from the accused-applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and as per the report dated 10.2.2023 Certificate of Test and Analyst by Government Analyst under Section 25(1) of Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940, the opinion of Analyst the sample of above referred is not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940, and rules thereunder for the reasons given under :- "The sample does not conform to Identification hence it is spurious." 5. There is no report that recovered drug was adulterated and chemical substance found excessive. He further submits that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery. The alleged recovery is false, planted and not supported by any independent witness. The applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery and the alleged recovered substance support the norms as prescribed under the Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940 hence no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.09.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. 7. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.09.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant, Rajesh Swaroop @ Anil Patel, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.