Allowed

Sandeep Tyagi S/O Shri Harendra Singh B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 May 2020CRLMB/1532/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner charged with distributing spurious drugs and operating a partnership firm illegally. The court allowed the bail application despite opposing arguments regarding the seriousness of the offence and accused involvement in monetary transactions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs.25,000 and surety of alike amount.

Sandeep Tyagi S/O Shri Harendra Singh B/C Brahmin Vs State… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1532/2020

¶3

Sandeep Tyagi S/o Shri Harendra Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vill. Kutubpur PS Chhapar Dist. Muzaffar Nagar (UP) At Present House No 203/5 Poorvawali Ganeshpur Rambag Colony PS Gangnahar Kotwali Rudki Dist. Haridwar Uttrakhand (At Present Petitioner Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mehla, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶10

Order

¶11

04/05/2020

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned Senior Counsel for the complainant through Video Conferencing.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been implicated by the Police by registering offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 476, 120-B IPC and under different Sections 17B(e), 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 18(a), 18(b) read with Section 36ac, 27(a), 27(B)(ii), 27 (c), 27(d), 28, 28A and 18(b) of Drug And Cosmetic Act 1940.

¶14

Learned counsel submitted that the Police after investigation has found that one Bhupendra Kumar Sharma and Anil Sihag formed a partnership firm in the name of Ganpati Enterprises in

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CRLMB-1532/2020]

¶17

Delhi and they had given address of their firm in Bhagirath Palace, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. Police after investigation has found that no business was carried out from the said shop. Counsel submitted that the Police after completing investigation has found that all the accused persons including the present accused petitioner were operating from Hotel All Seasons, Rudki and they were selling spurious drugs. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation levelled against the present petitioner is not of selling any spurious drugs to one firm registered as Darsh Distributors in Jaipur through other co-accused Vinay Mangal. Learned counsel submitted that the Police after investigation has found that the petitioner was assigned role of transporting the medicine as per the directions of accused Bhupendra Kumar Sharma and as such the petitioner cannot be implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the Police after investigation has found that the entire money transaction between the firm Shree Ganpati Enterprises and Darsh Pharma, Jaipur was between Bhupendra Kumar Sharma and Vinay Mangal. Learned counsel submitted that no money was ever transferred by Vinay Mangal in the bank account of the petitioner and only due to allegation of transporting the alleged spurious drugs, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the offences levelled against him.

¶18

Learned counsel further submitted that the recovery of spurious drugs has also not been made from him as such the petitioner is implicated in the present case without any evidence on record.

¶19

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamlakar Sharma argued that the petitioner is guilty of committing offence of distributing the spurious drugs. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CRLMB-1532/2020]

¶22

the spurious drugs were in fact very important drugs for patients of Hyper Tension and by selling spurious drugs, accused are playing with the lives of the innocent people and distributing of spurious drugs is only to such patients who have been prescribed these drugs by Doctors. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the Police after investigation has found that all the accused including the present petitioner were involved in preparing, selling and distributing spurious drugs. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the word “transporting” which has been coined by the counsel for the petitioner, does not exclude the liability of the accused petitioner as the petitioner has been found in distributing drugs and as per Section 18 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and petitioner is liable to be punished for an imprisonment which may extend to 10 years.

¶23

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted that Police has found that all the accused persons had joined hands together to procure spurious drugs and they all were involved in selling and distributing the spurious drugs. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Advocate refers to the investigation which has been conducted by the Police wherein specific allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons of their involvement in the entire case. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that other co-accused Vinay Mangal who has been enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur, Metro Jaipur vide order dated 29.01.2020, the complainant has also filed application for cancellation of bail before this Court, wherein notices have been issued.

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[CRLMB-1532/2020]

¶26

Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the bail application of the other co-accused Bhupendra Kumar Sharma has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2019 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16160/2019.

¶27

Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the various details of Bank Accounts where money is transferred in favour of the accused petitioner directly, in fact shows involvement of the petitioner in the entire incident of selling of spurious drugs.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Police after investigation has found that the drugs in question were spurious and selling of spurious drugs is a serious offence. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Police has collected ample evidence to connect the present accused petitioner with the main accused who had formed firm at Delhi and further one more firm was operating from Jaipur.

¶29

This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after considering the entire investigation conducted by the Police finds that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.

¶30

Accordingly, the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sandeep Tyagi S/o Shri Harendra Singh, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/with one surety of alike amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶32

Ramesh Vaishnav/86/10

Sandeep Tyagi S/O Shri Harendra Singh B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Tyagi S/O Shri Harendra Singh B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

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

Dr. Ayushi Gupta D/O Dr. Sunil Gupta Vs Union of India

Nahari B W/O Kishan Singh B/C Muslim Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Prasad Verma S/O Sh. Gobarilal Verma B/C Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Gupta@Sonu S/O Shri Govind Narain Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagta Ram Son of Shri Moti Ram Bagdi Vs State of Rajasthan

Om [email protected]. S/O Bhanaram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan