IMPORTANT POINT
Nature and gravity of the accusation and severity of the punishment in the event of conviction are the guidelines which have to be kept in mind while granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

2. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC by the petitioner Rajesh Purohit @ Bholiya s/o Late Rameshchandra Goriya who has been arrested in CR No. 59 of 2012 registered at police station Khanda Falsa Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 274, 275, 276, 420, 120B, IPC and 103, 104 Trade Mark Act and Section 17B and 27 Drugs and Cosmetic Act.

3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the SHO PS Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur as well as the Drug Control Officer, Jodhpur received a source information regarding the transaction of spurious Mero-CD, Merosul (Meropenam injection. The search of a drug store named Nakoda Med Cos was undertaken on 26.5.2012 and certain injections were seized under the suspicion that they were spurious. The proprietor of the Medical Store Tansukh Vadera was arrested. Thereafter certain other medical stores viz. Mehta Medical, Varsha Medicos, Amar Shanti Medicos, Kakkad Medicos were also raided on the basis of sale of spurious injections were also made from these medical stores. An FIR No. 59/2012 under Sections 274, 275, 276, 120B, 420 IPC and 103, 104 Trade Mark Act and 17B and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was registered at the PS Khanda Falsa and investigation commenced. The proprietors of the said stores viz Kapil Kakkar, Manish Mehta, Sumer Singh, Arun Chug, Ajay Choudhary etc were arrested. A report was taken from the original manufacturer of the injections seized were fake and spurious. Investigation and analysis of the seized injections revealed that the injections which had been seized by the officers of the Drugs Department and the police officers and also the ones sold to the decoys being Mero-CD and Merosul injection were fake and spurious. The drug is said to be a life saving drug. The analysis report dated 6.7.2012 was received and it was found that the presence of the life saving salt was not found at all in the injection. The arrested accused who were the owners of the medical stores produced the bills of purchase to the IO showing that the injections in question had been supplied by the petitioner Rajesh Purohit @ Bholiya. On this the petitioner Rajesh Purohit and Kalyan Jash were apprehended. The statement of two witnesses Suresh Acharya and Shyamlal Vaishnav were recorded and they deposed that it was the petitioner who got the labels and the boxes of the spurious injections printed through them. The investigation further revealed that Rajesh Purohit was a medical representative but his authority to deal in medicines came to an end about 10 years ago but despite that he continued to deal in the medicines. The evidence collected also revealed that the spurious injections in question were got manufactured by him. Evidence was also collected to the effect that he got printed the counterfeit and forged labels and boxes of the spurious injections from Rama Printers, Jaipur. Evidence was also collected to the effect that the petitioner used the services of co-accused Ajay Chaudhary for the purpose of downloading the label designs from the official website of the Company and thereafter placed the order for printing of the boxes to Rama Printers and packed the spurious injection after appending counterfeit slips in the boxes bearing counterfeit label. During the course of investigation 1016 counterfeit labels recovered from the possession of the petitioner from his own residential house. Evidence about E-mail sent by the petitioner for the purpose of procuring counterfeit labels and boxes was also collected. After the collection of the said evidence, the petitioner has now been charge-sheeted in the matter.

4. The petitioner who is in judicial custody has now approached this Court for being released on bail.

5. Shri N.K. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this ca