Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 151 (HP)

Rishabh Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-10

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was an employee of M/s Allied Pharma and was wrongly arrayed as a party. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.08.2023. Accused Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla. Directors of M/s KC Overseas, were granted bail by the Court. No specific role was assigned to the petitioner regarding his participation.The competent persons of M/S KC Overseas were released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The prosecution cited forty-six (46) witnesses and only three (3) witnesses have been examined. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that Drugs Inspector received a secret information regarding the sale of spurious drugs (labelled as “manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma and Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd., Unit-II, Nandasan, District Mehsana, Gujarat”) by M/s Allied Pharma and M/s KC Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in connivance with each other to various drugs manufacturing companies located in Himachal Pradesh. It was found during the preliminary investigation that M/s Allied Pharma Chem and M/s KC Overseas Pvt. Ltd. hold valid wholesale drugs licenses. Mr. Sanjay Singh is the proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma Chem. Mr. Rishabh Singh (present petitioner) was working as a competent person. Mr. Ankit Singla and Mr. Ankush Singla are Directors of M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Harish Kumar is the competent person of M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. It was found that these Firms were supplying suspected spurious drugs in connivance with each other to various pharmaceutical Firms. M/s KC Overseas Pvt. Ltd. supplied suspected spurious drugs to M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences, M/s Logos Pharma and M/s Ultra Drugs Pvt. Ltd. A team of Drugs Inspectors inspected the premises of M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. on 8.5.2023 and found raw materials labelled as 'EXPLOTAB’ (Sodium Starch Glycolate Type A), VIVASOL GF (Croscarmellose Sodium) and FLOCEL (Microcrystalline Cellulose) labelled as “manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma and Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd”. It was found that there were clear differences in labels of spurious and genuine drugs. The samples were drawn for analysis and the stock was frozen. It was found that there were clear differences in labels of spurious and genuine drugs. The samples were drawn for analysis and the stock was frozen. The team of Drug Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Logos Pharma on 9.5.2023 and found spurious drugs which were frozen in the presence of the representatives of M/s Logos Pharma. It was found that a suspected stock of drugs was also supplied by M/s K.C. Overseas. Samples were drawn and sent to the Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh. A team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Ultra Drugs Pvt. Ltd. on 10.5.2023 and found a stock of suspected spurious drugs. Samples were drawn and the remaining drugs were frozen. It was found that stock was supplied by M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Ultra Drugs Pvt. Limited. The team of Drugs Inspectors and the police visited the premises of M/s K.C. Overseas on 10.5.2023 and found Harish Kumar, a competent person and two other employees on the premises. Representatives of M/s JRS Pharma visited the premises of M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences on 11.5.2023 and declared that the drugs stated to have been manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma were not manufactured by it. Harish Kumar was arrested on the spot. The representatives of M/s JRS Pharma verified on 12.5.2023 that Vivasol was not manufactured and supplied by it. Sanjay Singh appeared before the Drugs Inspector on 16.5.2023 and disclosed himself as the proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma Chemical. Pradeep Singh accompanied him and disclosed himself as a Data Entry Operator. Sanjay Singh disclosed that he had provided spurious drugs to M/s KC Overseas. which were stated to have been manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma and Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. The inspecting team reached the premises of M/s Allied Pharma and verified these facts. Sanjay Singh was arrested. The team of Drug Inspectors also seized the spurious drugs from M/s Park Pharmaceuticals on 31.5.2023. M/s KC Overseas also confirmed that spurious Explotab tablets were supplied by M/s Allied Pharma. Statement of Pradeep Singh was recorded that the entire stock of Sodium Starch Glycolate was converted into Explotab stated to have been manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma at the instance of the present petitioner. M/s JRS Pharma revealed that it had never entered into any agreement with M/s Allied Pharma nor it had supplied Explotab and Vivasol to M/s Allied Pharma. M/s JRS Pharma revealed that it had never entered into any agreement with M/s Allied Pharma nor it had supplied Explotab and Vivasol to M/s Allied Pharma. The samples were declared of standard quality after analysis. M/s Allied Pharma could not provide a drugs manufacturing licence, permission to manufacture the drugs or any agreement between it and M/s JRS Pharma. The documents were seized and a complaint was filed before the Court after completion of the investigation. The matter was listed for examination of the prosecution witnesses on 07.01.2025. It was admitted that bail petitions of the petitioners were already rejected by this Court on 28.12.2023 and 23.05.2024. It was asserted that the petitioner would abscond and influence the witnesses in case of release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The star witness of the prosecution has turned hostile. There is a delay in the progress of the trial and the co-accused have already been released on bail on this ground.Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed. 5. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is involved in the manufacturing of spurious drugs, which is a serious offence. The petitioner had approached this Court twice but his bail petitions have been dismissed. There is no change in circumstances and the present petition is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed that the present be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 , this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:— “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the star witness of the prosecution has turned hostile, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. This submission will not assist the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, and dacoity Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the commencement of trial. This submission will not assist the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, and dacoity Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the commencement of trial. Bail cannot be granted because there are some discrepancies in the deposition, which affects the credibility of the victim. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the Accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its final conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event that the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed. 17. In the case on hand, the victim is yet to be examined. Her mother, who, according to the case of the prosecution, is an eyewitness, has also not been examined so far. 17. In the case on hand, the victim is yet to be examined. Her mother, who, according to the case of the prosecution, is an eyewitness, has also not been examined so far. The High Court seems to have looked into a few discrepancies in the FIR compared to the statement of the victim recorded Under Section 164 of the Code. This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of an Accused in a serious offence like rape.” 10. In the present case, the bail is being sought on the ground of the variation in the statements of the witness as and it is impermissible to grant bail on this ground as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Harish Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2024:HHC:15775 shows that Harish Kumar was released on bail because he was arrested on 11.05.2023 and the chances of the conclusion of the trial against him were held to be not so bright. The present petitioner was arrested on 18.08.2023. If the Coordinate Bench had held that the chances of the conclusion of the trial against the co-accused were not bright, the same finding would operate qua the present petitioner because both of them are being tried for the commission of the same offence by the same Court. Hence, the petitioner will be entitled to bail due to the delay in trial. 12. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner while on bail will abide by the following terms and conditions:- i) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required by the police authorities/competent authorities. ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (v) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (vi) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 13. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 15. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case 16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 17. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.