9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1593 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - allegations of manufacturing and distributing spurious anti-cancer drugs - anti-cancer injections were being supplied to the Petitioner who is running a pharmacy shop in Muzaffarpur Bihar in the name of Popular Medicine - HELD THAT - In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee 2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court has laid down the parameters for granting or refusing bail to an accused. In the present case the Petitioner is in custody since 13.03.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed. The evidence is primarily documentary in nature and is already in the custody of Police. Considering the fact that that the evidence is primarily documentary in nature the possibility of the Petitioner tampering with evidence is very remote and since most of the witnesses are official witnesses the chance of the Petitioner threatening the witnesses is also very remote. This Court is inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered by the Court was whether the Petitioner should be granted bail in connection with FIR No. 59/2024, which involves allegations of manufacturing and distributing spurious anti-cancer drugs. The specific legal questions included:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The Court referenced the parameters set by the Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee for granting or refusing bail. These include the existence of prima facie evidence, the nature of the accusation, the severity of potential punishment, and the risk of the accused absconding or influencing the trial process. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court evaluated the evidence against the Petitioner, which primarily consisted of documentary evidence such as disclosure statements, WhatsApp chats, and call records. The Court noted that the evidence was already in police custody, reducing the risk of tampering. Additionally, most witnesses were official, minimizing the chance of them being threatened. Key Evidence and Findings The evidence against the Petitioner included his alleged involvement in a syndicate distributing spurious anti-cancer injections. The State argued that the Petitioner was a key distributor, receiving supplies from co-accused and further distributing them across India. The prosecution highlighted a money trail and other documentary evidence linking the Petitioner to the offenses. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the parameters for bail consideration, emphasizing the documentary nature of the evidence and the fact that the Petitioner had been in custody since March 13, 2024. The Court found that the risk of evidence tampering was minimal, and the likelihood of the Petitioner threatening witnesses was remote. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Petitioner argued that the case was based on documentary evidence, reducing the risk of tampering. The State opposed bail, citing the Petitioner's involvement in a well-organized cartel and the serious nature of the offenses. The Court balanced these arguments, ultimately finding in favor of granting bail under strict conditions. Conclusions The Court concluded that the conditions for bail were met, given the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The Court imposed several conditions to mitigate risks associated with granting bail. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court granted bail to the Petitioner, subject to several conditions designed to ensure his compliance and prevent any interference with the judicial process. These conditions included:
The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not influence the trial's outcome.
|
