Rajasthan High Court
Vinay Mangal S/O Sh. Ghanshyam ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 857/2023
Vinay Mangal S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Mangal, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. 30 Kasturba Nagar, Nirman Nagar P.s.
Shyam Nagar Jaipur Permanent Resident Of Vrindavan Oil Mill,
Pawta, Tehsil Pawta, P.s. Pragpura, District Jaipur, At Present
Confined In J.c. At Central Jail Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. C. Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. K. Sharma, Senior Counsel with
Mr. Shivangshu Naval, Mr. Ankit Popli,
Adv.
Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 09.02.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 17.02.2023
1. This 3rd bail application has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.328/2019 Registered
at Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s)
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 476, 120-B IPC and Sections,
17B(e), 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 18A, 27A, 27(b)(ii) and 27(c) of
the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars for
more than 1 year and 7 months. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that previously petitioner was enlarged on
bail by the trial court. After that, M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
(2 of 5) [CRLMB-857/2023]
had filed the bail cancellation application before this Court and this
Court had cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial
court. After that, petitioner had challenged the said order before
the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the
petition filed by the petitioner and gave liberty to file a fresh after
change of the circumstances.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
police after completion of investigation has filed the charge-sheet.
In charge-sheet as many as 34 witnesses were shown but only
one witness PW1-Vachan Singh Meena was examined by the trial
court till today and conclusion of trial may take long time. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also submits that co-accused Sandeep
Tyagi has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 04.05.2020 in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Application No.1532/2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The present
FIR was lodged after a delay of one month. Seizing Officer Sindhu
Kumari was trapped by the ACD Department for taking bribe.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the FSL
report, seized tablets were not found in conformity with the
original tablet Losal-H prepared/manufactured by M/s Torrent
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that as per the lab report, nothing injurious was found in
the analysis and sample was not found adulterated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Seizing
Officer PW1-Wachan Singh Meena also admitted the fact that lab
report did not bear that seized drugs were spurious. Learned
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-857/2023]
counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had
purchased all the tablets of Losal-H from a registered firm M/s
Ganpati Enterprises of Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submits that petitioner is wholesaler of the medicines. There
is no evidence that petitioner had ever manufactured these drugs.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that PW1-Vachan
Singh Meena in his cross-examination admitted the fact that
petitioner had purchased all the medicines from M/s Ganpati
Enterprises of Delhi. Petitioner had submitted the bills as well as
bank details of bank account by which payment was made. Hence,
the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.5075/2017 decided on
08.06.2017; (2) Harider Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17379/2021 decided on
27.09.2022; (3) Mohammed Abeer Khan Vs. State of
Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.6276/2021 decided on 13.05.2021; (4) Dr. Jitesh Arora
Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.12581/2021 decided on 08.09.2021; (5) Shiv Kumar Vs.
State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail
Application No.1218/2016 decided on 05.02.2016; (6) Rafiq
Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail
Application No.1219/2016 decided on 05.02.2016; (7)
Sandeep Tyagi Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.1532/2020 decided on 04.05.2020 and
(4 of 5) [CRLMB-857/2023]
(8) Neena Gupta Vs. Ut of Ladakh in CRM (M) No.01/2021
decided on 04.08.2022.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant as well as Public
Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner and submitted that allegation against
the petitioner is that petitioner had sold the spurious tablet of
Losal-H which was not manufactured by the M/s Torrent
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. As per the lab report, these tablets were not
found in conformity with the original tablet Losal-H manufactured
by M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Learned Senior Counsel for
the complainant also submits that petitioner and co-accused
Bhupendra were playing with the health of the people and they
sold the spurious drugs to various persons. Huge stocks were
seized from petitioner's shop. Learned senior counsel for the
complainant also submits that bail of the co-accused Bhupendra
was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned
counsel for the complainant also submits that Hon'ble Apex Court
had granted liberty to the petitioner for filing the bail application
after change of the circumstances but in the present case
circumstances have not been changed for filing the fresh bail
application because as per the statement of Vachan Singh, case of
the prosecution fully proved. Learned senior counsel for the
complainant also submits that during the search of the petitioner's
shop, co-accused Bhupendra had submitted the license
cancellation application online. This also shows that petitioner and
Bhupendra had connivance in selling the spurious medicines. So,
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-857/2023]
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, bail be
dismissed.
5. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has placed
reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. reported in (2020)
2 SCC 118.
6. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the
petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits and
demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the 3rd bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vinay
Mangal S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Mangal be enlarged on bail
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court with the stipulation that he will appear before
the trial court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when
called upon to do so.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /59
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
