SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
L. Praveen Kumar (Dr.) - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2202 of 2022 & Crl.M.(Bail) 885 of 2022, Bail Appln. 2290 of 2022 & Crl.M.(Bail) 915 of 2022 and Bail Appln. 2262 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022




The court established that while the charges are serious, the evidence collected does not necessitate continued detention, leading to the granting of bail under stringent conditions for accountability in trial.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 7A, 8 - Application for bail - Applicants denied bail due to involvement in a criminal conspiracy for bribes concerning drug approval processes, significantly impacting public health. Court affirmed the necessity of preemptive bail conditions given the severity of the allegations and possibility of influencing witnesses. (Paras 6, 12, 47)

(B) Bail - Granting of - Applicants were not flight risks and had roots in society; their continued custody was deemed unnecessary post-filing of charge sheet, thus bail was granted under stringent conditions to ensure accountability during trial. (Paras 47, 34)

(C) Evidence - Standard of proof - The court noted that constitutional and statutory frameworks dictate the admissibility of evidence, particularly in high-stakes economic offences which should be treated with caution. (Paras 8, 45)

Facts of the case:
Applicants sought bail after being implicated in a bribe-taking scheme involving drug regulatory approvals, wherein an extensive investigation led to allegations of conspiracy and manipulation of drug trial processes for private gain.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that, despite the gravity of accusations, the evidence collected did not warrant continued prejudicial detention, considering the procedural adherence to regulations regarding arrest and evidence collection.

Issues: Whether the grave nature of the charges justified a refusal of bail; the adequacy of evidence for implicating the applicants in the alleged conspiracy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach where serious economic offences require careful scrutiny to avoid wrongful incarceration while ensuring prosecution's interests are safeguarded.

Result: Bail granted to the applicants with conditions.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The applications filed by Dr. L. Praveen Kumar, Dinesh Dua and S. Eswara Reddy i.e. BAIL APPLN. 2202/2022, BAIL APPLN. 2290/2022 & BAIL APPLN. 2262/2022 respectively are taken up together, in as much as, all the three applicants seek the grant of bail in relation to FIR No. RC0032022A0037 dated 19.06.2022 filed by the CBI/(ACB) Delhi under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8 of the PC Act, 1988. The applicants, through their respective applications submit that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

2. The status report of the CBI in BAIL APPLN. 2202/2022 dated 26.07.2022 and status reports of the CBI in BAIL APPLN. 2290/2022 and BAIL APPLN. 2262/2022 dated 06.08.2022 are premised on the same facts.

3. The version put forth by the CBI is to the effect that the FIR/RC bearing case no. RC0032022A0037, CBI, ACB, Delhi was registered by Respondent/CBI on 19.06.2022 on the basis of source information against:

(1) Sh. S. Eswara Reddy, Joint Drug Controller (JDC), India at Head Quarter, CDSCO, New Delhi (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2262/2022),

(2) Ms. Guljit Sethi @ Guljit Chaudhri, Director M/s Bioinnovat Research Services Private Limited, Delhi;

(3) Sh. Dinesh Dua, Director, M/s Synergy Network India Private Limited, Delhi (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2290/2022);

(4) Sh. L. Praveen Kumar, Associate Vice President and Head-National Regulatory Affairs (NRA), M/s Biocon Biologics Limited, Bangalore (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2202/2022);

(5) Sh. Animesh Kumar, Assistant Drug Inspector (ADI), CDSCO, New Delhi and other unknown officials of CDSCO, New Delhi for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8 of PC Act, 1988 and under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. It is submitted by the CBI through the status report dated 26.07.2022 that it had been alleged in the FIR that the accused Dr. S Eswara Reddy, Joint Drug Controller, India, Head Quarter, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), New Delhi (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2262/2022) was dealing with the processing of files related to applications for approval of drugs and vaccines by various pharma companies and in relation thereto, he received three files of M/s Biocon Biologics Limited, Bangalore including one file related to waiver of Phase-III, Clinical trial of "Insulin Aspart Injection" for processing and approval and that a bribe amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the accused Guljit Sethi to Animesh Kumar, Assistant Drug Inspector (ADI) for processing the file.

5. It is stated through the status report that the accused S. Eswara Reddy (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2262/2022) in alleged criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons and other unknown officers of CDSCO, had manipulated minutes of meeting of Subject Expert Committee dated 18.05.2022 and further included the aforesaid third file of M/s Biocon Biologics Limited, Bangalore in SEC meeting on 15.06.2022 which resulted in wrongful gain to M/s Biocon Biologics Limited, Bangalore. It was also submitted through the said status report that the investigation conducted till then revealed that Guljit Sethi was acting as a conduit on behalf of pharmaceutical companies including above-mentioned Pharma companies and had delivered/arranged huge bribe amounts for senior officers of CDSCO on different occasions for processing their respective files favorably and that the source revealed that Dr. L. Praveen Kumar (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2202/2022) Associate Vice President and Head-National Regulatory Affairs (NRA), M/s Biocon Biologics Limited, Bangalore had agreed to pay an undue pecuniary advantage of Rs 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs) as motive/reward to Dr. S. Eswara Reddy, Joint Drug Controller, CDSCO, New Delhi (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2262/2022) for processing his file favorably and that the source further revealed that Guljit Sethi directed Dinesh Dua (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2290/2022)











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top