High CourtsSingle Bench

Shahraukh Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 24 June 2024 · Citation: (2024) 06 UK CK 0120

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 274, 275, 276, 420 · Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 32
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 519 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 363 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.69 of 2024, under Sections 274, 275, 276, 420 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Gangnahar, District- Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

According to the FIR, on 08.02.2024, police raided a premises and found that medicines were being shifted in the premises and some medicines were being packed. The applicant was monitoring the entire process. The FIR records that at the time of raid, the applicant admitted that he did not have any production license. The police recovered huge quantity of medicines from the premises and arrested the applicant.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no IPC offence is made out. The Government Analyst report does not reveal that it was an adulterated drug, which may be punishable under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (“the Act”) only.

5.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the medicines were sub-standard, as per the Government Analyst report. She fairly concedes that the offence under IPC, as such, is not made out and it is punishable under the provisions of the Act only.

6.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

7.

If offences are punishable under the provisions of the Act alone, in such cases, cognizance can only be taken on a complaint that may be filed under Section 32 of the Act. In the instant case, the FIR is lodged. At this stage, it has not been shown that the medicines were adulterated.

8.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

9.

The bail application is allowed.

10.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.