VINEET KUMAR SHUKLA @ VINEET SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER
ABAIL/1194/2025 · 2025-11-07
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 181566 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 181566 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1194 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Case Crime No.214 of 2021 under Sections 17A, 18A, 18C/27, 28 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 registered at Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that during an inspection conducted by three officials of the Drugs and Cosmetics Department at a private hospital, several misbranded drugs were found in the medicine shop, leading to the registration of a complaint case against three accused persons, including the applicant, who is arrayed as accused no. 1.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to page no. 35 of the paperbook, which contains Form No. 17, indicating that the seized medicines were recovered from the premises of co-accused Amit Kumar and not from the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant’s specific role has not been defined in the entire prosecution case, except for an allegation in the complaint that the payment for the said medicines was made by the applicant, for which there is no corroborative evidence on record. It is further submitted that co-accused Farzan Ali, who is also named in the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Pathak, Pramendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vineet Kumar Shukla @ Vineet Shukla .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
complaint, has been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 875 of 2025. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. Considering the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, co- accused Farzan Ali has already been granted anticipatory bail, and the applicant has undertaken to cooperate in the complaint case registered in 2021 and during the trial proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in light of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the trial. In view of the above, the accused-applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of 15 days from today. Upon his surrender, the trial court shall release him on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court; (iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness; (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance; (v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. November 7, 2025/R.C.
ABAIL No. 1194 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench