HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL 1st Bail Application No. 2351 of 2024 Ravikant ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Ravikant is in judicial custody in FIR (Case Crime) No. 41 of 2024, under Sections 420, 274, 275, 276, 34 IPC read with Section 27(b)(ii), 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 29.01.2023, the police raided a premises and arrested the applicant and the co-accused. Spurious medicines sere manufactured at that premises. It is also the prosecution case that the premises was taken on lease by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as per the prosecution, there are four partners in manufacturing of adulterated spurious drugs, out of which one Arun Kumar and Rajendra Singh have been granted bail, whose car was also recovered from near the premises. He would submit that the co-accused Arun Kumar was also arrested on the spot. 2 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the role of the applicant was quite distinct; the applicant was arrested from the spot; adulterated and spurious medicines were recovered; FSL report is on record. She would submit that the premises was taken on rent by the applicant from the landlord Manish Rastogi. The rent deed has also been enclosed as Annexure 8 to the counter affidavit. 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. It is not a case of parity. Adulterated and spurious drugs were recovered from the premises in the presence of the applicant. The premises was taken on rent by the applicant. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 25.04.2025 Avneet/