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

2025 Supreme(HP) 1079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA 
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rishabh Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2960 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Kapoor.
For the Respondent:Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General.

The court held that delays in trial can justify bail, emphasizing that the presence of the accused during proceedings is paramount, balancing the seriousness of the offence against procedural delays.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 437 and 439 - Bail petition - Petitioner seeking bail after being in judicial custody since 18.08.2023 for alleged involvement in manufacturing spurious drugs - Co-accused granted bail while no specific role assigned to petitioner - Court emphasized the importance of ensuring presence of accused at trial and preventing interference with witnesses - The petition was allowed due to significant delay in trial. (Paras 1, 11, 12)

(B) Bail - Nature of seriousness of offence - The court referenced principles from Ramratan v. State of M.P. and other cases emphasizing that bail should not be denied solely based on witness discrepancies, particularly in serious crimes, unless trial integrity is at risk. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner worked for a pharmaceutical company accused of selling spurious drugs and has been in custody since August. Co-accused received bail, with delays in the trial process. The prosecution's primary witnesses faced issues during examination, affecting credibility. (Paras 1, 9)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that due to the excessive delay in trial and the same circumstances applying as in co-accused's bail, the petitioner is granted bail with certain conditions. (Paras 11, 12)

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s conditions for bail had changed sufficiently to warrant a favorable decision despite serious allegations against him. (Para 4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between serious offences and consideration of bail, aligning with precedents that recommend not granting bail unless trial delay is undue and not the fault of the accused. (Paras 7, 10)

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail with specific conditions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's bail application and factual background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's analysis of circumstances surrounding bail. (Para 3 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments for and against bail. (Para 4 , 5)
4. legal standards for granting bail. (Para 7 , 9)
5. conclusion and order regarding bail grant. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17)

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. 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 In

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