Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
D. Ravi Verma @ Dr. Ravi Verma vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:25739) on 19 June, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:25739]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4885/2024
Dr. D. Ravi Verma @ Dr. Ravi Verma S/o Shri D. Satyanarayan
Verma @ Satyanarayan Verma Agankulakshatriya, aged about
38 years, R/o 31-45-9/1/1 LIG 44, Ward No. 86, Kuramanpalam,
PS - Kuramanpalam, Vishakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh, Presently
R/o care of Jyoti, Balaji Golden State, SSB Road, PS - Jawahar
Nagar, Dist. Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Presently lodged in Jail,
Sriganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3901/2024
Dr. Rajeeb Kumar S/o Krishnanand Prasad, aged about 54 years,
R/o RQ-09, Ridhi Sidhi Colony, Hanumangarh Road,
Sriganganagar (Raj.) (At Present lodged in Central Jail Sri
Ganganagar.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3904/2024
Jogaram S/o Lalaram, aged about 29 years, R/o Aamli District
Sanchore, At Present Nursing Staff, Shri Ram Hospital, G-Block,
Sriganganagar (Raj.) (At Present lodged in Central Jail Sri
Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Sharma
Mr. B.S. Sandhu
Mr. Saurabh Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
(Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 08:31:34 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (2 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI (VACATION JUDGE)
Order
19/06/2024
(S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
4885/2024)
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection
with F.I.R. No.141/2024 dated 21.03.2024, registered at Police
Station Kotwali Ganganagar, District Ganganagar, for the offences
under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as a
Psychiatrist at Sri Ram Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. As per the
prosecution, an inspection was carried out on 21.03.2024 at the
hospital in question and Dr. Rajeeb Kumar who was working with
the Sri Ram Hospital was interrogated by the inspection team and
upon interrogation, Dr. Rajeeb Kumar stated that he is working as
Physician with the Sri Ram Hospital and other than him one Dr. D.
Ravi Verma is also working with the Sri Ram Hospital as a
Psychiatrist. Dr. Rajeeb Kumar stated before the inspection team
that upon the demand of Dr. D. Ravi Verma medicines under
Schedule-H are being kept in his room as Dr. D. Ravi Verma's
room is on the first floor of the hospital. Dr. Rajeeb Kumar further
stated that on account of the fact that few patients are unable to
climb stairs, the medicines are kept in the chamber of Dr. Rajeeb
Kumar and such medicines are being given by Dr. D. Ravi Verma
to the patients and in the absence of Dr. D. Ravi Verma, the
medicines are administered by Dr. Rajeeb himself. It is further
case of the prosecution that upon inspection, certain medicines
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (3 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
were recovered from the chamber of Dr. Rajeeb Kumar, viz.
Clonazepam tablets IPI-P KlozaPS 2 MD (8 boxes), Alprazolam
Tablets IP Alpz 0.5 (5 boxes), Zolpidem Tablets IP Zoltrate-10 (2
boxes), Escitalopram & Clonazepam tablets IPI-P KlozaPS-ES (2
boxes). The prosecution case is that when Dr. Rajeeb Kumar was
asked for the bills and license of the aforementioned medicines
under his control and being found in his chamber, he stated that
the said bills and license are not with him and thus the petitioner,
i.e., Dr. D. Ravi Verma could not have kept the said medicine in his
possession in the absence of the bills and license, thus case was
registered for offence under Section 8/22 under the NDPS Act. The
inspecting team immediately took over the possession of the
aforementioned tablets and a notice under Section 52 of the NDPS
Act was served upon and the petitioner was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medicines
recovered are used for treatment of the patients and it is wrong to
say that the medicines have been illegally stored in the hospital.
He further submits that as per the Schedule H, the medicines in
the registered hospital were being distributed by the registered
Medical Practitioner i.e. the present petitioner. Learned counsel
also submits that for the said medicines the bills are also placed
on record but the respondents without appreciating the fact that
the bills qua the said medicines were there, proceeded to arrest
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there
is no material on record indicating that the petitioner, who is
working as Psychiatrist, has intentionally violated the norms under
the NDPS Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Learned counsel
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (4 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
further submits that statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
is not admissible. He places reliance upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. He also submits that the
medicines recovered during investigation have been supplied
under valid bills issued by the distributors/manufacturers.
5. Learned counsel also submits that Rule 65-A of the Rules of
1985 specifically provides that no person can
purchase/sell/consume or use any Psychotropic substance, except
in accordance with the drugs and comestic rules and such Rules
specifically provides that these acts shall be for the purpose
mentioned in Chapter VII-A of the NDPS Rules. Learned counsel
also submits that Rule 67 of the NDPS Rules provides in Rule (a)
(iii)(b) that Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance can be
used for de-addiction of drug addicts, however, it mandatorily
requires that the record of said acquisition and bills be maintained
for last two years.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the
order passed in the case of Dr. Dharmendra Vs. UOI, through
C.B.N. Chittorgarh (S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.3042/2020)
was pleased to observe as under:-
"From a perusal of the Form No.7, in reference
whereto the violation of the NDPS Act is attributed to
the petitioner, it is clear that the details required to be
mentioned therein are almost identical to those which
are required to be mentioned in the Schedule K of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The respondents have not
disputed the fact that the registers maintained under
Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 at
both the institutions were provided to them. There is
no allegation regarding any discrepancies in the entries
made therein. Therefore, there is merit in the
contention of Mr. Jain that even if it is assumed that
the petitioner failed to maintain the Form No.7 in the
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (5 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
proper proforma, then too he had no mens rea
whatsoever for committing any offence punishable
under the NDPS Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
Any comment by this court as to whether violation in
the case at hand would be of Rule 65-A or that of 67-A
of the NDPS Rules would be premature and may even
prejudice the trial. The fact that all the medicinal
preparations administered to the patients at both the
institutions were lawfully procured is admitted in the
complaint. On a perusal of the Supreme Court
judgment in The State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar
(supra) relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, it
comes out that the accused persons of that case were
found in possession of bulk drugs without any valid
authorization, whereas in the case at hand, the
complaint itself reads that the drugs in question were
lawfully acquired for the two medical institutions
operated by the petitioner. Thus, the facts of the said
case are totally distinguishable. The petitioner is
suffering from serious medical ailments and he has
been extended the benefit of interim bail by this court.
He is a qualified medical professional and is a
permanent resident of Haryana and owns significant
properties. Thus, there is no likelihood of the petitioner
absconding in the event of being released on bail.
Furthermore, the respondents too have not expressed
any apprehension either in the complaint or in their
reply that the petitioner may repeat the offence, if
released on bail. Thus, the conditions of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act are duly satisfied. Hence, I am inclined
to extend the indulgence of bail to the petitioner in this
case."
7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that the
medicines in question were found in possession of the petitioner
for which the bills and the license were not available with the
petitioner and thus, the petitioner has been found guilty of
violating the provisions of Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.
8. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court
prima facie does not find any allegation that the Psychotropic
substance (drugs/medicines) recovered were acquired illegally.
The conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly
satisfied, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (6 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
or demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dr. D. Ravi
Verma @ Dr. Ravi Verma S/o Shri D. Satyanarayan Verma @
Satyanarayan Verma Agankulakshatriya, arrested in relation
to F.I.R. No.141/2024 dated 21.03.2024, registered at Police
Station Kotwali Ganganagar, District Ganganagar, shall be
enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before
the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when
called upon to do so.
(S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
3901/2024)
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection
with F.I.R. No.141/2024 dated 21.03.2024, registered at Police
Station Kotwali Ganganagar, District Ganganagar, for the offences
under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered
medical doctor, having obtained his MBBS degree in 1996 and is
working as a Physician at Sri Ram Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. As
per the prosecution, an inspection was carried out on 21.03.2024
at the hospital in question and petitioner, namely, Dr. Rajeeb
Kumar who was working with the Sri Ram Hospital, was
interrogated by the inspection team and upon interrogation, Dr.
Rajeeb Kumar stated that he is working as Physician with the Sri
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (7 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
Ram Hospital and other than him one Dr. D. Ravi Verma is also
working with the Sri Ram Hospital as a Psychiatrist. Dr. Rajeeb
Kumar stated before the inspection team that upon the demand of
Dr. D. Ravi Verma medicines under Schedule-H are being kept in
his room as Dr. D. Ravi Verma's room is on the first floor of the
hospital. Dr. Rajeeb Kumar further stated that on account of the
fact that few patients are unable to climb stairs, the medicines are
kept in the chamber of Dr. Rajeeb Kumar and such medicines are
being given by Dr. D. Ravi Verma to the patients and in the
absence of Dr. D. Ravi Verma, the medicines are administered by
Dr. Rajeeb himself. It is further case of the prosecution that upon
inspection, certain medicines were recovered from the chamber of
Dr. Rajeeb Kumar, viz. Clonazepam tablets IPI-P KlozaPS 2 MD (8
boxes), Alprazolam Tablets IP Alpz 0.5 (5 boxes), Zolpidem Tablets
IP Zoltrate-10 (2 boxes), Escitalopram & Clonazepam tablets IPI-
P KlozaPS-ES (2 boxes). The prosecution case is that when Dr.
Rajeeb Kumar was asked for the bills and license of the
aforementioned medicines under his control and being found in his
chamber, he stated that the said bills and license are not with him
and thus the petitioner, i.e., Dr. Rajeeb Kumar could not have kept
the said medicine in his possession in the absence of the bills and
license, thus case was registered for offence under Section 8/22
under the NDPS Act. The inspecting team immediately took over
the possession of the aforementioned tablets and a notice under
Section 52 of the NDPS Act was served upon and the petitioner
was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medicines
recovered are used for treatment of the patients and it is wrong to
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (8 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
say that the medicines have been illegally stored in the hospital.
He further submits that as per the Schedule H, the medicines in
the registered hospital were being distributed by the registered
Medical Practitioner i.e. the present petitioner. Learned counsel
also submits that for the said medicines the bills are also placed
on record but the respondents without appreciating the fact that
the bills qua the said medicines were there, proceeded to arrest
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there
is no material on record indicating that the petitioner, who is
working as Physician has intentionally violated the norms under
the NDPS Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Learned counsel
further submits that the statements under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act are not admissible. He places reliance upon the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. He also
submits that the medicines recovered during investigation have
been supplied under valid bills issued by the
distributors/manufacturers.
5. Learned counsel also submits that Rule 65-A of the Rules of
1985 specifically provides that no person can
purchase/sell/consume or use any Psychotropic substance, except
in accordance with the drugs and cosmetic rules and such Rules
specifically provides that these acts shall be for the purpose
mentioned in Chapter VII-A of the NDPS Rules. Learned counsel
also submits that Rule 67 of the NDPS Rules provides in Rule (a)
(iii)(b) that Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance can be
used for de-addiction of drug addicts, however, it mandatorily
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (9 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
requires that the record of said acquisition and bills be maintained
for last two years.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the
order passed in the case of Dr. Dharmendra Vs. UOI, through
C.B.N. Chittorgarh (S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.3042/2020)
was pleased to observe as under:-
"From a perusal of the Form No.7, in reference
whereto the violation of the NDPS Act is attributed to
the petitioner, it is clear that the details required to be
mentioned therein are almost identical to those which
are required to be mentioned in the Schedule K of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The respondents have not
disputed the fact that the registers maintained under
Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 at
both the institutions were provided to them. There is
no allegation regarding any discrepancies in the entries
made therein. Therefore, there is merit in the
contention of Mr. Jain that even if it is assumed that
the petitioner failed to maintain the Form No.7 in the
proper proforma, then too he had no mens rea
whatsoever for committing any offence punishable
under the NDPS Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
Any comment by this court as to whether violation in
the case at hand would be of Rule 65-A or that of 67-A
of the NDPS Rules would be premature and may even
prejudice the trial. The fact that all the medicinal
preparations administered to the patients at both the
institutions were lawfully procured is admitted in the
complaint. On a perusal of the Supreme Court
judgment in The State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar
(supra) relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, it
comes out that the accused persons of that case were
found in possession of bulk drugs without any valid
authorization, whereas in the case at hand, the
complaint itself reads that the drugs in question were
lawfully acquired for the two medical institutions
operated by the petitioner. Thus, the facts of the said
case are totally distinguishable. The petitioner is
suffering from serious medical ailments and he has
been extended the benefit of interim bail by this court.
He is a qualified medical professional and is a
permanent resident of Haryana and owns significant
properties. Thus, there is no likelihood of the petitioner
absconding in the event of being released on bail.
Furthermore, the respondents too have not expressed
any apprehension either in the complaint or in their
reply that the petitioner may repeat the offence, if
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (10 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
released on bail. Thus, the conditions of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act are duly satisfied. Hence, I am inclined
to extend the indulgence of bail to the petitioner in this
case."
7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that the
medicines in question were found in possession of the petitioner
for which the bills and the license was not available with the
petitioner and thus, the petitioner has been found guilty of
violating the provisions of Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.
8. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court
prima facie does not find any allegation that the Psychotropic
substance (drugs/medicines) recovered were acquired illegally.
The conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly
satisfied, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits
or demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dr. Rajeeb
Kumar S/o Krishnanand Prasad, arrested in relation to F.I.R.
No.141/2024 dated 21.03.2024, registered at Police Station
Kotwali Ganganagar, District Ganganagar, shall be enlarged on bail
provided he furnishes a personal bond in sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned
on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
3904/2024)
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (11 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
with F.I.R. No.141/2024 dated 21.03.2024, registered at Police
Station Kotwali, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under
Section 8/22 of NDPS Act.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is
working on the post of Nursing Staff with the Sri Ram Hospital, Sri
Ganganagar. As per the prosecution, an inspection was carried out
on 21.03.2024 in the medical store run by Sri Ram Hospital,
wherein certain allopathy medicines were seized and upon further
inspection medicines having pyschotrophic substances were also
found. During the said inspection, four injections of Mezolam (Nrx.
Midazolam Injection IP) for I.M./I.V. use, 5 ml each were
recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested in
the FIR at hand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medicines
recovered from the medical store were purchased upon the
demand raised by Dr. Rajeeb Kumar. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also stated that the petitioner had stated before the
inspecting team that the bills for the said medicines may be either
with Dr. Rajeeb Kumar or the hospital Manager/Operator (संचालिका)
Smt. Santosh Devi. Learned counsel also submitted that the
petitioner has wrongly been implicated in the case as the
petitioner is working in the hospital as Nursing Staff and was given
additional charge for maintaining the record of purchasing the
medicines on computer and thus, if any medicines have been
purchased, then the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same.
He further submits that a false case has been foisted against the
petitioner and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences and
no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the
[2024:RJ-JD:25739] (12 of 12) [CRLMB-4885/2024]
bars. He also submits that there are no criminal antecedents of
similar nature against the accused-petitioner. Thus, the petitioner
may be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor as well as perused the material available on record.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court, prima facie finds that the petitioner was discharging
the duties of Nursing Staff with Sri Ram Hospital and was
additionally entering the details of medicines in the computer that
are being purchased. Therefore, without expressing any opinion
on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court deems it just
and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Jogaram S/
o Lalaram, arrested in relation to F.I.R. No.141/2024 dated
21.03.2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sri
Ganganagar, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a
personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of
Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for
his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of
hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI), VJ
1-3-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
