Dr. Vinay Shankar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3370 MP

                                     1
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                  BEFORE
                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                           ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2022

                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 62832 of 2021

         Between:-
         DR. VINAY SHANKAR TRIPATHI S/O LATE SHRI
         BRIJ KUMAR TIWARI , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
         OCCUPATION: SCIENTIST 23, NEW RANI BAGH,
         KHANDWA ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                    .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI MANISH DATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI MAYANK
         SHARMA, ADVOCATE )

         AND

         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
         POLICE STATION CRIME BRANCH THRU. P.S.
         CRIME BRANCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI YOGESH DHANDE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

      This M.Cr.C. coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                      ORDER

With the consent, finally heard.

This is the third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.10/2021 for the offences under Sections 274, 275, 276, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 18A, 18(a)(i), 18(a)(iv) and 27 of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Section 3 of Epidemic Act, 1897 registered at Police Station Crime Branch Indore.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that first application (M.Cr.C. No.43346 of 2021) was dismissed on merits on 28.9.2021 (Annexure A/1) whereas second application (M.Cr.C. No.25736 of 2021) was permitted to be withdrawn on 07.6.2021.

Learned senior counsel submits that as per prosecution story, 400 Remdesivir injections were recovered from applicant's possession. The defence of applicant is that he had already preferred applications for grant of Patent in U.S. and India. The applicant is highly educated person. He has experience of working

in Pharma Industry which is evident from page no.23 which shows that he worked with a Pharma Industry 'RANBAXY'. The applicant is in custody since 15.4.2021. The complete challan could not be filed till date. The applicant's family is cooperating with the investigation. The delay in completing the investigation is

solely attributable to the prosecution. For this reason, the applicant cannot be kept behind the bars, moreso, when incriminating material is already in the custody of prosecution. In support of aforesaid submissions, Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the orders of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2018 (Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 1978 AIR SC 527 (Babu Singh and others. vs. The State of U.P.), Criminal Appeal No.2178 of 2011 (Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI), Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2021 (Fakhrey Alam vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh) and judgment of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.15397 of 2017 (Manish Gandhi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh). It is submitted that in order to deprive the applicant from the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the investigation was kept incomplete, which is bad in law. This amounts to curtailment of rights of an accused to seek default bail.

Per contra, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate opposed the bail application and contended that first application was already decided on merits. Since, FSL report is awaited, the complete challan could not be filed. Soon FSL report is received, it will be filed before the Court below.

The applicant is in custody since 15.4.2021. Although, applicant's first bail application was decided on merits on 28.9.2021, the applicant remained in custody thereafter for quite some time. The prosecution could not complete the investigation. The delay in completing the investigation could not be attributable to the applicant. The incriminating material is already in possession of the prosecution. The judgments on which reliance is placed by Shri Datt is that default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory right because it flows from Article 21 of the Constitution.

This Court in Manish Gandhi (Supra) opined that if contents of police report reveal that investigation is incomplete and report is filed to defeat the right of accused to a default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the Court can take into

account the factual backdrop. However, it is made clear that it is an essential question of fact to be determined on the merits of each case. In the instant case, in the opinion of this Court, applicant remained in custody for a considerably long time. He cannot be blamed for delay in completing the investigation particularly when the incriminating material is already in possession of the prosecution. The interest of justice would be served if applicant is granted bail by reserving liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of it if FSL report is adverse to the applicant.

Considering the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to grant bail to the

applicant.

Consequently, the application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

The applicant Dr. Vinay Shankar Tripathi is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

It is also observed that if the applicant is found to be involved in any criminal activities, after his release on bail, then the present bail order shall stand cancelled without further reference to the Court and the State / prosecution will be free to arrest the accused person in the present case also. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. The applicant shall surrender his passport before trial court and not leave the country without express permission granted by the trial court.

C.c. as per rules.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE Signature Not Verified PK SAN

Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.11 18:07:08 IST