Reserved On: 16.9.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14695 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 16.9.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 October, 2024

2024:HHC:9408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 1890 of 2024

.

Reserved on: 16.9.2024

Date of Decision: 01.10.2024.

    Dinesh Sharma                                                                ...Petitioner

                                            Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh


    Coram
                            r                to                                  ...Respondent

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Ms Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate

General, with Mr Abhilash Kumar, Drugs Inspector, Head Quarter,

Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking

regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested

for the commission of offences punishable under Section 18(a)(i)

read with Sections 17(B), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 22(3) punishable under

Sections 27(b)(ii), 27(c) and 27(d), of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2024:HHC:9408

on 25.7.2023. The complaint is pending before learned Special

Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., without any progress. No

.

charge has been framed against the petitioner or other persons

and the petitioner's right to speedy trial is being violated. The

petitioner approached the Court seeking regular bail and his

application bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 2200 of 2023 was dismissed on

27.9.2023. The petitioner again approached the Court by filing

Cr.MP(M) No. 449 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on

10.5.2024. The petitioner has roots in the society. He would abide

by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose.

Hence the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report giving

the details of the complaint. It was asserted that the petitioner had

admitted the supply of the raw material i.e. Calcium and

Torsemide Tablets. He has not disclosed the source of other active

and pharmaceutical ingredients supplied to the co-accused. A

production warrant has been issued to the Superintendent of

Tihar Jail for the production of accused Surinder Malik. Police

verification of Naresh Kumar dated 3.8.2024 has been received.

Surinder Malik was arrested on 11.9.2024 and six days' remand

has been taken from the Court. The complaint was filed before the

2024:HHC:9408

Court on 21.1.2023 and the supplementary complaint was filed on

11.8.2023. Data from the laboratory and Telecom Service Provider

.

are awaited. The petitioner had not joined the investigation

despite giving ample opportunity and had not disclosed all the

sources of purchase/supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients.

No reply has been received regarding the petitioner's address

verification and criminal history. He would not be available in case

of release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present

petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General,

for the respondent/State.

4. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the main accused Mohit Bansal was

released on bail by the Court in a case titled Mohit Bansal Vs. State

of H.P. 2024:HHC:7674 on the ground of delay in the conclusion of

the trial. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the

petitioner be released on bail.

2024:HHC:9408

5. Ms Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, for

the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was arrested

.

on 25.7.2023, whereas Mohit Bansal was arrested on 22.11.2022.

The petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation. The

matter is listed for framing of charges. There is no delay in the

progress of the trial. Therefore, she prayed that the present

petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in Mohit

Bansal (supra) shows that the Court had concluded that the main

accused Mohit Bansal was behind bars for more than two years

and ten months. The Court had not framed the charge and he was

entitled to be released on bail on the ground of delay in the

conclusion of the trial. The submission made on behalf of the State

that the offence was grave was not found to be sufficient to reject

the bail on the grounds of delay in trial.

8. It was submitted that in the present case, the main

accused and the present petitioner were arrested on different

dates. The main accused Mohit Bansal was arrested on 22.12.2022,

2024:HHC:9408

whereas, the present petitioner was arrested on 25.7.2023. Hence

the situation in the two cases is not similar. This submission

.

cannot be accepted. As per the status report, the police found a

huge stock of spurious tablets in the godown of Mohit Bansal on

22.11.2022. He had undertaken the manufacturing of the drugs

along with the co-accused. Thus, he was the principal accused

who had manufactured spurious drugs as per the prosecution. The

petitioner only supplied the components for the manufacturing of

the spurious drugs and the status report does not show that the

petitioner was himself instrumental in the manufacturing of the

spurious drugs. Once the Court has held that there is a delay in the

trial for the main accused, the same finding would apply to all the

accused. It cannot be said that the delay in the trial would be

different for different accused based on their dates of arrest. When

the Court grants bail to an accused because of the delay in the

progress of the trial, the bail is not granted because the accused

was arrested on a particular date and there is a cut-off date for

concluding the trial but simply because the Court finds that the

prosecution would not be able to complete the trial within a

reasonable period and the detention of the accused in such

circumstances will not be justified. Hence, the submission that

2024:HHC:9408

different criteria should apply to a person based on his date of

arrest cannot be accepted. This plea can be accepted where the

.

delay was caused by the accused e.g., where he had absconded or

had not cooperated with the progress of trial but not in a case

where the charge sheet/complaint was filed against all the accused

on one day. In such a situation, the period of detention would not

be material and only the finding that the prosecution is unable to

complete the trial within a reasonable time would be material.

9. In the present case, this Court has already recorded a

finding that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This

finding would bind the prosecution and this Court. Hence, the

petitioner shall be entitled to bail on the principle of parity and

delay in the progress of the trial.

10. 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 ₹50,000/- with two sureties of

the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and

conditions: -

(i) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed to do so by means of a written hukamnama.

2024:HHC:9408

(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 in case a charge sheet is

.

presented against him 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 intending a visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.

(v) 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.

11. 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.

12. The observation made herein before shall remain

confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no

bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st October, 2024 (Chander)