M/S Sajay Medical Store v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 350 of 2020 • M/s Sajay Medical Store House No. 333, Plot No. 42, Khasra No. 1209/2, 1126/1, Main Road (Ganesh Chowk), Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Through Proprietor- Shri Sanjay Munjwani S/o Shri Kishanchand Munjwani, Aged About 43 Years.
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Smt. Nikita Shrivastava, Drug Inspector, Office-Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent _______________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Amit Kumar Verma, P.L.
__________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 09/03/2020
1. The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Criminal Case (Drugs and Cosmetic Act) No. 2/2019 pending before Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetic Act), Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 18(a)(i), 17(c), 17B(c) and 27(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 07.06.2017 Mrs. Nikita Shrivastava, Drug Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Dhamtari alongwith one Shankar Verma made an inspection in the medical store i.e. M/s Sanjay Medical Store, Dhamtari (C.G.). During inspection, it was found that medicine namely Oflocef Plus tablet total 240 in numbers was kept in the store. The said 240 tablets were divided into four parts and out of those four parts, one part was sent to Government Analyst
Drug Testing Laboratory, Raipur in which the above mentioned drug/medicine was declared as below standard medicine. On the basis of the said, offence has been registered.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that prima facie, no case is made out against present applicant. Applicant had purchased the said drug/medicine from the co-accused M/s Kamla Enterprises. He further submits that applicant is not the manufacturer of the said medicine and he is not responsible in any manner regarding low standard of the medicine. Looking to the above, it is prayed that present applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application.
5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, without further commenting on other merits of the case, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
8. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Presiding Officer of the concerned trial Court. He shall also abide by all the following terms and conditions : i He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court,
ii He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and iii He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash