Allowed

Subrangsu Mukherjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Jun 2020A.B.A./997/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a Plant Manager accused under the Dugs and Cosmetics Act. The court directed surrender within four weeks for regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to surrender within four weeks; released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Subrangsu Mukherjee Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 997 of 2020

¶2

¶3

Subrangsu Mukherjee @ Subhrangsu Mukherjee … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.

¶8

¶9

4/05.06.2020 Heard the parties.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defect no. 9 (ii) has been removed. So far as the rest defects are concerned, the same are ignored. Office to check and proceed.

¶11

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dugs and Cosmetics Case No. 1 of 2019.

¶12

It has been alleged that the petitioner is the Plant Manager of Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. It has been alleged that a tripartite agreement was entered into between Sciemed Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Praxair India Private Ltd. and RIMS, Ranchi for installation of tank for storage of liquid medical oxygen. It appears that Praxair India Private Ltd. was to install storage tank and liquid Oxygen would be supplied by them. The delivery challan did not mention the drug licence of Sciemed Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., which resulted in the institution of the case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director of Sciemed Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. namely, Shailendra Prasad Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A. B. A. No. 4291 of 2019. It has been stated that Sciemed Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., was having a drug licence at Patna and since invoice did not mention about the drug licence at Ranchi, the prosecution was launched. It has been stated that Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer and Sciemed Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. was merely a facilitator. It appears that the main allegations are levelled against Sciemed Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, who as stated above has already been granted anticipaoty bail in A. B. A. No. 4291 of

¶14

-2-

¶15

The petitioner is a Plant Manager of Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. and there is no dispute with respect to the manufacturing licence of the said company.

¶16

Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C. II, Ranchi in connection with Dugs and Cosmetics Case No. 1 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

This application stands allowed.

¶19

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶20

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Subrangsu Mukherjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subrangsu Mukherjee 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

Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dularchand Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shibu Manjhi Alias Kana Alias Babulal Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Benjamin William Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harihar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand