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

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEEPAK VERMA, J.
Rajesh Swaroop @ Anil Patel - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 48952 OF 2022.
Decided On : 22-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For Applicant : Ajay Kumar Mishra, Counsel.
For Opposite Party : G.A.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 274, 275, 276, 419, 420 - Trade Marks Act, 1958 - Section 102, 103 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Bail application for applicant facing charges of selling duplicate medicines - No evidence of adulteration or independent witness to support recovery - Court noted absence of merit in prosecution's case - Bail granted subject to conditions of non-tampering and cooperation in trial. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is alleged to have sold duplicate medicines, with 50 packets recovered from a co-accused and 25 packets from the applicant himself; however, the government analyst found the sampled medicines not to conform to the quality standards but did not indicate adulteration.

Findings of Court:
The applicant is not shown to have a criminal history and has been in custody since 02.09.2022; the court found the case against him lacking sufficient evidence to warrant continued detention.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the evidence supporting drug quality, the implications of the applicant's alleged actions, and the lack of witnesses to support the prosecution's claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the case against the applicant to lack substantive evidence, highlighting that the absence of independent witnesses and the nature of the offense justified bail.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. application for bail due to insufficient evidence. (Para 3 , 4)
2. claims of false implication and lack of evidence. (Para 5)
3. court allows bail based on presented arguments. (Para 7)
4. conditions imposed on applicant for bail. (Para 8 , 9)

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 :-

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. 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.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document