Disposed

Nirmal Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jun 2019A.B.A./1202/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with a case under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Bail is granted provisionally subject to furnishing security and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted provisional anticipatory bail on deposit of Rs.10,000 cash security and bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, conditional upon answering a questionnaire from the Drug Inspector.

Nirmal Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 1202 of 2019

¶3

Nirmal Kumar Singh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. ------

¶7

Order No.07 Dated- 20.06.2019

¶8

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with C/2 Case No.41 of 2014 registered under sections 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶10

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Care Medical Centre, Chhotagovindpur and it is alleged that the complainant –Drug Inspector inspected the Drug Supply Centre, Jojobera, Jamshedpur of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. and during the inspection it was found from perusal of the stock register that drugs in huge quantity have been purchased without licence and the officers of the centre also informed the Drug Inspector that the drugs has been purchased from M/s Care Medical Centre of which the petitioner is the proprietor. It is then submitted that the Drug Inspector sent description regarding supply of drugs to the company for last two years and also called for a report from M/s Care Medical Centre, Chhotagovindpur vide letter no. 129 dated 21.01.2013 but M/s Care Medical Centre, Chhotagovindpur has not provided the said information. The learned counsel for the

¶11

petitioner further drawing attention of this Court to paragraph no. 3 & 4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 10.06.2019, further submits that the petitioner has not received the said letter no. 129 dated 21.01.2013 nor he has any knowledge of the said letter and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the complainant- Drug Inspector in every manner and the main allegation is against the Lafarge India Private Ltd. and there is no specific allegation against M/s Care Medical Centre, Chhotagovindpur. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail provisionally on depositing cash security of Rs.10,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Drugs & Cosmetics, Jamshedpur, in connection with C/2 Case No.41 of 2014 with the condition that he will provide all the informations which will be sought by the complainant –Drug Inspector by issuing a letter to him in respect of this case.

¶14

In case, the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the court below is directed to issue notice to the complainant –Drug Inspector and direct him to submit a questionnaire to the petitioner and the trial court will give reasonable time to the petitioner to answer the questions put to him. If the petitioner satisfactorily answers all the questions within the time period given by the trial court, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner shall be confirmed by the trial court till disposal of this case but if the petitioner does not cooperate in answering the questions of the

¶15

complainant with relevant documents, the provisional bail granted to him shall stand cancelled.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Sonu/Gunjan-

Nirmal Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Talo Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Wasi Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Akhtar Ansari Alias Akhtar Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Motiram Mohanty Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Mehta Alias Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand