Court rejects bail applications in Spurious Drugs

Representational Image

JAMMU: 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Subash Gupta has rejected the bail applications of Amit Bansal, Uma Sharan Gupta, Sachin Attri, Mukesh Kumar and Dushyant Singh of Apka Dawa Bazaar and Sanyog Enterprises situated at Akhnoor Road accused of selling Spurious Drugs.
The Court after hearing APP Sanjay Kohli appearing for the State observed that on perusal of the allegations as made in the present complaint, documents enclosed in support of those and after going through the other relevant record lying on the present complaint file, it appears that a grievance was laid with the management of Abbot Health Care Pvt Ltd by one Munish Aggarwal, who felt dizziness, after consuming medicine namely ‘Stemetil-MD Batch No. KAWB7075’, which, he purchased from business concern belonging to accused 1 to 14. Immediately after receiving the afore mentioned grievance/complaint, the management of the Abbot Health care Pvt Ltd approached the Deputy Controller, Jammu, Division Drugs and Food Control Organization, Jammu, who was pleased to constitute a team of Drug Inspectors including the complainant Sanjay Bhat for investigation in this regard. Thereafter, they appear to have inspected the premises of accused No. 1 to 14 namely Apka Dawa Bazaar and Sanyog Enterprises situated at Akhnoor Road Jammu and seized 11 strips of medicines namely Stemetil-MD Batch No: KAWB7075. Consequent thereupon, a thorough investigation was conducted in the matter. In the course of investigation of the complainant-Drugs Inspector, it surfaced that all the accused impleaded in the present compliant from serial No. 1 to 23 have engaged themselves in keeping in stock, supply, sale, distribution of Stemetil-MD Batch No: KAWB7075 that was never manufactured by Abbot Health Care Ltd. Its management seems to have supported their referred claim by submitting relevant documentary record/evidence, in this regard. Stock, supply, sale and distribution of the aforementioned batch of medicine were found with all the accused. This is evident from the relevant documents enclosed with the complaint. Further they failed to disclose the name/s of the manufacturer of the aforementioned batch of medicine being found sold, supplied, stocked and distributed by them.
Court after hearing both the sides observed that in existence of the order of cognizance relating to commission of offences as defined under sections 17 B (e) & made punishable under section 27 (c) of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, it is not only difficult rather impossible for this court to return a finding, at this stage, as to recording of satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants/accused are not guilty for such offences.
Hence, having drawn such an inference by me, applicants/accused are not held entitled to be released on bail as there is a specific bar contained in the Provisions of Section 36 AC of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act,1940 in this regard. With these observations court rejected the bail application.