Atul Gupta Vs State of Hp

1 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MPs(M) No. 984 & 1024/2025 Reserved: 04.07.2025 Decided on: 18.07.2025

__________________________________________________ (1) Cr. MP(M) No. 984/2025 Atul Gupta ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _________________________________________________ (2) Cr. MP(M) No. 1024/2025 Surender Malik ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ __________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s) : Ms. Shradha Karol, Mr. Nishant Singh and Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondent/State : Mr. I.N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Addl. AG and Mr. Ankush Thakur, Dy. AG.

¶8

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶9

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

¶10

2 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶11

Since both the bail applications arise out of a

¶12

common complaint case, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶13

The instant bail applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”) for releasing them on bail in a complaint case No. 1/2023, under Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 17-B, 18(a)(vi), 18(c) & 22(3), punishable under Sections 27(c), 27(d), 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DAC Act’).

¶14

The brief facts of the case, as per the reply/status report filed by the respondent-State, are that a complaint was registered on 22.11.2022 on information that one person named Mohit Bansal was running medicine business at Agra and was involved in the manufacturing of spurious drugs from his manufacturing premises, which is situated near the Jayanti Chowk at Baddi. Information was also received that in the absence of Mohit Bansal, his brother-in-law was looking after the manufacturing work of spurious medicines at Baddi. On the same day, a huge stock of spurious medicines was recovered

¶15

3 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶16

by the Drugs Inspector from said Mohit Bansal during the

¶17

course of search of vehicle bearing registration No.UP80FC7530 (Creta Car), at Baddi Police Barrier, the detail of which is

¶18

given as under:-

¶19

Sr. No	Product name	Quantity/ tablets	Value in rupees	Manufacturer name, as per the label claim.
1.	Zerodol TH4	190100 tablets	39,73,090/-	M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Melli Jorethang Road Gom Block Bharikhola, South District Sikkim-737121.
2.	Roseday 10 tablets	28950 tablets	3,65,638/-	M/s USV Private Ltd. Khasra No. 1342/1/2 Hill Top Industrial Area Jharmajri, Baddi, Solan, H.P.
3.	Montair 10	50720 tablets	10,76,684/-	Cipla Ltd. Unit II Taza Block Sikkim 737133 India.

¶20

Said Mohit Bansal could not produce any licence/

¶21

authorization for the aforesaid spurious medicines and thereafter on the same very day, during the course of search of

¶22

his godown, the following spurious medicines were also

¶23

recovered:-

¶24

Sr. No.	Product name	Quantity/ tablets	Value in rupees	Manufacturer name, as per the label claim.
1.	Montair 10	295800 tablets	62,79,245/-	Cipla Ltd. Sikkim.
2.	Atorva 10 tablets	31650 tablets	2,15,874/-	M/s Zydus Healthcare Sikkim.
3.	Roseday-10 tablets	97420 tablets	12,30,414/-	M/s USV Limited Baddi.

¶25

4 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶26

4.	Zerodol TH4	71080	14,85,572/-	M/s IPCA Laboratories
	tablets			Limited, Sikkim.

¶27

Besides the above-mentioned recovered spurious medicines, a huge stock of loose tablets of Calcium, Torsemide and active raw materials as Amplodipine alongwith excepients PvPK 30, plain & printed foils and packaging material used for manufacturing of spurious drugs, was also recovered from the said godown and all the drugs and material recovered were seized and thereafter three persons, namely, Mohit Bansal, Atul Gupta (petitioner herein) and Vijay Kaushal were arrested on 22.11.2022. During interrogation, Vijay Kaushal disclosed that he had done the foiling/primary packing i.e. labeling of the compressed tables at M/s Trizal Formulations in association with other accused persons and thereafter, during search of manufacturing unit on 24.11.2022, a huge quantity of allopathic spurious drugs (loose tablets), raw materials (API and excipients), rubber stereos, scrap of foils and processed material and the machineries and change parts used in the manufacturing and packaging of spurious drugs were also recovered and since the heavy machines, change parts and

¶28

5 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶29

equipments were used for manufacturing of spurious drugs, as such, the premises of M/s Trizal Formulations, Baddi, Solan was sealed. On 25.11.2022, the shop of accused Mohit Bansal at Agra, U.P. was searched and during search, huge stock of spurious allopathic medicines was recovered and seized by the Drugs Inspector. During investigation, accused Mohit Bansal and Atul Gupta(petitioner herein) disclosed that they had taken three room set on rent at House No. 262, Mishra Villa, Phase-3, Baddi, Solan, H.P., where foils used in the manufacturing of spurious drugs were lying. They further disclosed that they had taken one another godown near fire station Baddi for storage of spurious drugs. Accordingly, residence of accused Mohit Bansal and Atul Gupta(petitioner herein) situated at House No. 262/3, ground floor, Mishra Villa, Phase-3, Baddi Solan, H.P. was searched and during search, huge stock of loose tablets of calcium citrate, Telmisartan, Drotaverine, packaging material, used rubber stereos, active raw materials alongwith die and punches were recovered from them in presence of the witnesses.

¶30

6 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶31

During the course of further investigation on

¶32

01.12.2022, Mohammad Qaiser Imam and Naresh Kumar, Asst. Manager Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. Ahmedabad submitted that products and foils of their firm which were recovered from the accused persons did not belong to M/s Zydus Lifesciences and thereafter a huge stock of following spurious drugs was also recovered:-

¶33

Sr. No.	Product name	Quantity/ tablets	Value in rupees	Manufacturer name, as per the label claim.
1.	Glimisave M2 tables	66000 tablets	806652/-	M/s Eris Lifesciences Limited, Amingaon North Guwahati Kamrup Assam
2.	Roseday 10 tablets	43950 tablets	555088/-	M/s USV Private Limited Plot No.6 & 7E HPSIDC, Indl. Area Baddi, Solan H.P.
3.	MONTAIR tables	67350 tablets	1429705/-	M/s Cipla Ltd., Unit II Taza Block Rorathang Sikkim.

¶34

In the reply received from M/s Eris Lifesciences Limited on 16.01.2023, it was confirmed that the drugs of M/s Eris Lifesciences recovered from accused Mohit Bansal and other accused persons were spurious in nature. The test and analysis reports of all samples were received from Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory (RDTL), Chandigarh, wherein it was found that the samples were not of standard quality and also

¶35

7 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶36

being spurious in nature. During the course of investigation, the statements of the helpers working at M/s Trizal Formulations, namely Shivam Thakur and Naval Kumar were recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. On 18.06.2023, accused Mohammad Idreesh disclosed that he purchased some raw materials from Surender Malik (petitioner herein). On 03.08.2023, a team of Drugs Inspector visited the residence of petitioner Surender Malik for execution of arrest warrant, however, he was not found there. On 19.08.2023, after getting the anticipatory bail from this Court petitioner Surender Malik joined the investigation. On 31.08.2023, he submitted his reply to notice dated 19.08.2013, however, he failed to produce invoice No. Sep. 01, dated 13.09.2022 and other relevant records of M/s Ackley Formulations, vide which, he has manufactured products. On 27.09.2023, the anticipatory bail of petitioner Surender Malik was rejected and thereafter, he did not join the investigation and vide order dated 10.04.2024, he was declared as proclaimed offender. On 29.07.2024, it was unearthed that he was lodged in Tihar jail in case of manufacturing spurious drugs. On 11.09.2024, petitioner

¶37

8 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶38

Surender Malik was produced by the Tihar Jail police before the learned JMFC Court Nalagarh and upon application for transfer of his custody, his custody was transferred to Drugs Inspector.

¶39

The bail applications have been filed by the petitioners on the ground that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that main accused namely Mohit Bansal, from whom spurious drugs were allegedly recovered and other co-accused persons have already been released on bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, as such, the petitioners also deserve to be released on bail on the ground of parity. She further contended that petitioner Atul Gupta is in judicial custody since 22.11.2022, whereas, petitioner Surender Malik is in judicial custody since 11.9.2024 and the trial is not going to be completed in near future, as out of total 82 witnesses cited in this case, till date only 05 witnesses have been examined, therefore, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. She also contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the

¶40

9 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶41

right of speedy trial of the petitioners, as such, they are entitled

¶42

to be released on bail on the ground that their right of speedy trial has been violated.

¶43

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail as they have been found involved in a serious offence of manufacturing of the drugs, which are found spurious.

¶44

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State and also gone through the records carefully.

¶45

It is not in dispute that main accused Mohit Bansal has been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.08.2024, passed in Cr. MP(M) No. 886 of 2024, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

¶46

“10. Bail petitioner is behind bars for considerable time and at this stage,there is nothing on record to suggest that trial commenced against the petitioner is likely to be concluded in a reasonable time, rather after having taken note of the fact that charge is yet to be framed, this court has reason to presume and believe that at least 4-5 years are likely to be consumed for the disposal of the case. In case, bail petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, it would not only amount to pre-trial conviction,

¶47

10 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶48

but would also be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

11. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is fundamental right of the accused and one cannot be made to suffer indefinitely for delay in trial and as such, this Court sees no reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period during trial. …..”

¶50

Thereafter, other co-accused persons namely Brijesh Kumar, Virender Kumar & Dinesh Sharma were released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 29.12.2023 & 01.10.2024 and co-accused Naresh Kumar and Vijay Kaushal were released on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024.

¶51

Since the main accused Mohit Bansal and other coaccused persons namely Brijesh Kumar, Virender Kumar, Dinesh Sharma, Naresh Kumar and Vijay Kaushal have already been released on bail by the Coordinate Benches as well as by this Court, therefore, the present petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended

¶53

that petitioner Atul Gupta is in judicial custody since 22.11.2022, whereas, petitioner Surender Malik is in judicial custody since 11.9.2024 and the trial is not going to be

¶54

11 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶55

completed in near future, as out of total 82 witnesses cited in this case, till date only 05 witnesses have been examined, therefore, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that petitioner Atul Gupta is in judicial custody since 22.11.2022, whereas, petitioner Surender Malik is in judicial custody since 11.9.2024 and out of total 82 witnesses cited, till date only 05 witnesses have been examined. The trial is still at its initial stage and has not progressed much.

¶56

It is well settled that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees for speedy trial and an undertrial prisoner cannot be detained in jail/custody for an indefinite period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the undertrials cannot be allowed to languish for years together in jail, while the trials proceed at snail's pace. If ultimately, the accused is found to be not guilty, the number of years, months and days spent by such accused as undertrial in jail, can never be given back to him and this is certainly a violation of his valuable right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶57

12 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶58

In Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. vs. R.S. Nayak

¶59

& Anr., (1992) 1 SCC 225 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to speedy trial is part of fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 and is reflected in Section 309 Cr. P.C. and that the said right comprehends all stages viz., investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶60

"81. Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The main procedural law in this country is the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Several other enactments too contain many a procedural provision. After Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), it can hardly be disputed that the 'law' (which has to be understood in the sense the expression has been defined in clause (3)(a) of Article 3 of the Constitution) in Article 21 has to answer the test of reasonableness and fairness inherent in Articles 19 and 14. In other words, such law should provide a procedure which is fair, reasonable and just. Then alone, would it be in consonance with the command of Article 21. Indeed, wherever necessary, such fairness must be read into such law. Now, can it be said that a law which does not provide for a reasonably prompt investigation, trial and conclusion of a criminal case is fair, just and reasonable? It is both in the interest of the accused as well as the society that a criminal case is concluded soon. If the accused is guilty, he ought to be declared so. Social interest lies in punishing the guilty and exoneration of the innocent but this determination (of guilt or innocence) must be arrived at with reasonable despatch - reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Since it is the accused who is charged with the offence and is also the person whose life and/or liberty is at peril, it is but fair to say that he has a right to be tried speedily. Correspondingly, it is the obligation of the State to respect and ensure this right. It needs no emphasis to say, the very fact of being accused of a crime is cause for concern. It affects the reputation and the standing of the person among his colleagues and in the

¶61

13 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶62

society. It is a cause for worry and expense. It is more so, if he is arrested. If it is a serious offence, the man may stand to lose his life, liberty, career and all that he cherishes.”

¶63

17. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee

¶64

Representing Undertrial Prisoners vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶65

“15. ……... Despite this provision, we have directed as above mainly at the call of Article 21 as the right to speedy trial may even require in some cases quashing of a criminal proceeding altogether, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak11, release on bail, which can be taken to be embedded in the right of speedy trial, may, in some cases be the demand of Article 21 As we have not felt inclined to accept the extreme submission of quashing 7

¶66

14 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶67

(1980) 1 SCC 98 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 40 8 (1986) 4 SCC 481 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 511 9 (1983) 2 SCC 104 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 361 10 (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 SCC (Cri) 899 11 (1992) 1 SCC 225 :1992 SCC (Cri) 93 the proceedings and setting free the accused whose trials have been delayed beyond reasonable time for reasons already alluded to, we have felt that deprivation of the personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial would also not be in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21. Of course, some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided in such cases; but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt. It is because of this that we have felt that after the accused persons have suffered imprisonment which is half of the maximum punishment provided for the offence, any further deprivation of personal liberty would be violative of the fundamental right visualised by Article 21, which has to be telescoped with the right guaranteed by Article 14 which also promises justness, fairness and reasonableness in procedural matters……...”

¶68

18. The Supreme Court in the case of State through CBI

¶69

V s. Dr. Narayan Waman Nerukar and another reported in

¶70

(2002) 7 SCC 6, has observed as under:

¶71

"6. Recently a 7-Judges Bench of this Court in P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578, held as under:

¶72

“1) No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure established by lawdeclares Article 21 of the Constitution. 'Life and liberty', the words employed in shaping Article 21, by the founding fathers of the Constitution, are not to be read narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries; they are organic terms to be construed meaningfully. Embarking upon the interpretation thereof, feeling the heart-throb of the Preamble, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of state policy and alive to their constitutional obligation, the courts have allowed Article 21 to stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately can. The mental agony,

¶73

15 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶74

expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial - in short, everything commencing with an accusation and expiring with the final verdict the two being respectively the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem of the journey which an accused must necessarily undertake once faced with an implication. The constitutional philosophy propounded as right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two and a half decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far off peak. Myriad fact-situations bearing testimony to denial of such fundamental right to the accused persons, on account of failure on the part of prosecuting agencies and executive to act, and their turning an almost blind eye at securing expeditious and speedy trial so as to satisfy the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution have persuaded this Court in devising solutions which go to the extent of almost enacting, by judicial verdict bars of limitation beyond which the trial shall not proceed and the arm of law shall lose its hold. In its zeal to protect the right to speedy trial of an accused, can the court devise and almost enact such bars of limitation though the Legislature and the statutes have not chosen to do so - is a question of far-reaching implications which has led to the constitution of this bench of seven-judge strength."

¶75

In Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of

¶76

Investigation & another, (2022) 10 Supreme Court Cases

¶77

51 , after taking note of the decision given in Surinder Singh

¶78

vs. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that personal liberty is an important

¶79

16 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶80

aspect of our constitutional mandate. The relevant portion of

¶81

the judgement reads as under:-

¶82

“53. Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab:

¶83

“8. It is no doubt true that this Court has repeatedly emphasised the fact that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution. The aforesaid article confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has also been emphasised by this Court that the procedure so prescribed must ensure a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. It is conceded that some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt. These are observations made in several decisions of this Court dealing with the subject of speedy trial. In this case, we are concerned with the case where a person has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Code of Criminal Procedure affords a right of appeal to such a convict. The difficulty arises when the appeal preferred by such a convict cannot be disposed of within a reasonable time…………….”

¶84

Thus from the foregoing enunciation of the law laid

¶85

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it becomes clear that long incarceration of an undertrial without any likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future infringes upon the right of speedy trial of such undertrial. Now adverting to the case at

¶86

17 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶87

hand, this court is conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious. As observed earlier, petitioner Atul Gupta is behind the bars since 22.11.2022 and petitioner Surender Malik is behind the bars since 11.09.2024 and out of total 82 witnesses cited, till date only 05 witnesses have been examined and the trial is fixed for 4^th & 5^th September, 2025 for examination of only some of the witnesses. Hence, keeping in mind, the length of the period spent by the petitioners in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed in near future, this Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant them bail. The detention of the petitioners has virtually become pre-trial punishment to them. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the delay in trial is attributable to the petitioners. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid facts, the petitioners can not be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period as further incarceration of the petitioners would be violative of their right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶88

Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this

¶89

18 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶90

Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion

¶91

to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners, shall be forthwith released on bail in this case, subject to their furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (each) with two local sureties of District Solan (each), to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The bail order is subject to, however, to the following conditions:-

¶92

“ (i) that the petitioners will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;

¶93

(ii) that they will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police;

¶94

(iii) that they will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor they will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;

¶95

(iv) that they will not repeat the offence, as is alleged to have been committed by them.

¶96

(v) that they will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

¶97

(vi) that they will not leave India without prior permission of the Court and will deposit their passports before the learned trial Court.

¶98

Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall

¶99

be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the interim

¶100

19 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶101

bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioners.

¶102

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.

¶103

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, District Jail Solan, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e- prison software.

¶104

In case, the petitioners are not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, District Jail Solan, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent, District Jail Solan, is further directed that if the petitioners fail to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶105

20 ( 2025:HHC:23297 )

¶106