Dismissed

Dr. Sant Ram Niranjan S/O Late Shri Raghuvanshi Lal Niranjan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 May 2024CRLMB/4820/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a Drugs and Cosmetics Act complaint case. The court found the petitioner had deliberately evaded summons, bailable warrants and arrest warrants and submitted a false report about his residence, disentitling him from relief.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail dismissed; liberty to surrender before trial court with direction to decide regular bail application the same day.

Dr. Sant Ram Niranjan S/O Late Shri Raghuvanshi Lal… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22604]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4820/2024

¶4

Dr. Sant Ram Niranjan S/o Late Shri Raghuvanshi Lal Niranjan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 42, Gopal Ganj, Urai, Janpad Jaloun (U.p.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

13/05/2024

¶13

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Sessions Case No.127/2017 (CIS No.169/2017) (Regular Criminal Case No.89/2017 (377/07), registered for the offence(s) under Sections 27(d), 27(c) & 28(B) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the accused-petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the complaint was filed on 21.08.2007 and at the time of commission of offence, petitioner Sant Ram Niranjan was not a managing director of Sun India Pharmacy Private Limited, Orai and left the company on 07.04.2004. The alleged offence was committed on 28.07.2005. He further submits that under Section 33(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,

[2024:RJ-JP:22604]

[CRLMB-4820/2024]

(2 of 4)

Allopathic Inspectors appointed under Section 21 of the Act, was not authorized to take the samples of Ayurvedic drugs. Admittedly, in the complaint, it is mentioned that Sun India Pharmacy Private Limited, Orai, was manufacturing ayurvedic capsules, therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner under chapter 4 is per-se illegal. He further submits that under the old Act, the offence committed under Section 27(d) is punishable with imprisonment upto two years with fine. Similarly, under Section 27(c), the maximum punishment prescribed is five years and under Section 28(B) is three years. He further submits that petitioner was never served upon with the summon or bailable warrant and petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the concerned Court and cooperate with the trial, therefore, anticipatory bail of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application. He submits that the petitioner remained absent despite services of summon/bailable warrant. It is also reported that after inquiry, it was found that accusedpetitioner has falsely submitted a report stating that petitioner is not working in the company, whereas, after secret inquiry, it was revealed that accused-petitioner was residing in the factory premises. It is also indicated in the report that accused-petitioner voluntarily did not appear before the concerned Court. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner filed a nomination before the returning officer, Jhasi, Jaloun & Lalitpur and submitted an affidavit containing the fact that petitioner never remained involved in any criminal activities, whereas, FIR

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:22604]

[CRLMB-4820/2024]

No.176/1998 under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Orai, further a complaint in the Factories Act was also filed against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that another complaint under Sections 33 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was also filed against the petitioner on 29.10.2007 before the C.J.M. Balsar, Gujarat, therefore, considering the conduct of the petitioner, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶23

Heard and perused the impugned order dated 03.04.2024.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case shows that complaint was filed on 21.08.2007 and thereafter, petitioner was called through summon/bailable warrant and lastly through arrest warrant. The factual report shows that petitioner deliberately evaded the service of summon/bailable warrant issued against him and submitted a false report containing the fact that petitioner is not residing in the premises. The factual report shows that petitioner has been residing in the factory premises. In the impugned order, it is also mentioned that on behalf of the accused-petitioner, application under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. was preferred on 26.05.2010 for quashing the proceedings and the application was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2023. Thus, it is evident that petitioner did not endeavour to mark his presence before the concerned Court despite issuance of summons/bailable warrant etc., The conduct of the petitioner as detailed in the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 is suffice to dis-entitle him for any

[CRLMB-4820/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:22604]

(4 of 4)

leverage, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner stands dismissed.

¶29

The petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the concerned Court and concerned Court is directed to decide the bail application on the very day.

¶30

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶31

Keshav/141

Dr. Sant Ram Niranjan S/O Late Shri Raghuvanshi Lal Niranjan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sant Ram Niranjan S/O Late Shri Raghuvanshi Lal Niranjan 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

Haji Younis Khan Son of Chand Muhammad, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aniket Shah Son of Shri Rajesh Kumar Shah, Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Gupta Vs State

Prahlad Ram S/O Pratapram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Dhanka S/O Shri Kishan Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Bagsingh Vs State of Rajasthan