Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3459 (HP)

Sanjay Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-11-20

Rakesh Kainthla

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in complaint No. 14/2023 dated 07.07.2023 filed under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with Sections 17B, 36 AC, 18A, 18B, 18c, 22 (3) punishable under Sections 27(b) (ii), 27 (c), 28, 28(a) and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Drugs Act) and the Rules framed there under. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2023 by the office of the Drugs Controller, Baddi. He is the proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma. He has no criminal antecedents and was wrongly arrested. The petitioner had applied for bail by filing a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1966 of 2024 , and was dismissed by this Court on 25.10.2024. Co-accused Harish Kumar was granted bail in Cr.MP(M) No. 2161 of 2024 decided on 24.12.2024. Another co-accused, Rishab Singh, was granted bail in Cr.MP(M) No.2960 of 2024 decided on 10.01.2025. The petitioner filed a special leave petition, which was registered as SLP Criminal No.16894/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, challenging the rejection order dated 25.10.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the bail petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Trial Court in case no reasonable progress was achieved within 18 months from the date of the order. The trial was conducted on 28.03.2025, 10.04.2025, 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 09.09.2025 and 10.09.2025. Statements of only two witnesses were recorded. The prosecution has cited 41 witnesses, out of whom 36 are to be examined. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India modified the earlier order dated 27.02.2025 in miscellaneous application with diary No. 40736/2025 and deleted para 2 wherein the liberty was reserved to approach the learned Trial Court after 18 months. Two accused have been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. Pradeep Singh has turned hostile. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that M/s Allied Pharma is the main accused who had procured spurious drugs for the co-accused. The petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. Pradeep Singh has turned hostile. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that M/s Allied Pharma is the main accused who had procured spurious drugs for the co-accused. The petitioner, Sanjay Singh, is the proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma, and he is the key person who had contravened various provisions of the Drugs Act. Drugs Inspector conducted a preliminary inquiry and found that Sanjay Singh, Proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma, and Rishab Singh, a competent person of M/s Allied Pharma, Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla, Directors and Harish Kumar, a competent person of M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd., were responsible for supplying spurious drugs to the various pharmaceutical manufacturing firms situated in Himachal Pradesh. This information was passed to the State Drugs Controller. The Drugs Inspector received a telephone call to join the investigation at M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences. A team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences in the presence of independent witnesses and found Explotab, Vivasol and Flocel on the premises. These drugs had clear differences in the labels and packaging cartons. It was suspected that these drugs were spurious. Ten (10) samples (three samples of finished drug formulations, six samples of Explotab and 01 sample of Vivasol GP) were taken for testing and analysis. M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences was directed to produce the purchase records. The records were produced and verified, and it was found that drug material was supplied by M/s. K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd, to M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences. A team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Logos Pharma, situated at Village Maissa Tibba, Tehsil & District Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., on 09.05.2023 and found spurious drugs. Fifteen (15) samples were taken after completing the formalities. A team of Drug Inspectors was constituted by the Assistant Drugs Controller, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. The team visited the premises of M/s Ultra Drugs on 10.05.2023 and found spurious drugs in the premises. The samples were taken, and the record of purchase was verified. It was found that drug material was purchased from M/s K.C. Overseas. M/s JRS Pharma was requested to join the investigation and identify the drugs manufactured by it. The samples were taken, and the record of purchase was verified. It was found that drug material was purchased from M/s K.C. Overseas. M/s JRS Pharma was requested to join the investigation and identify the drugs manufactured by it. The team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s K.C. Overseas with the police and Harish Kumar, who was a competent person of the Firm was found present in the premises. Mr Deepak Gupta and Mr Shubham were also present. Directors of the Firm, Ankush Singla and Ankit Singla, were contacted, but no reply was received from them. The stock of the material was frozen on the spot. Mr Jaya Parkash M, authorised signatory and one representative, Anil Patel of M/S JRS Pharma, visited the premises of M/s K.C. Overseas on 11.05.2023 and identified the material in the premises as genuine, supplied by M/s JRS Pharma. They were requested to visit the premises of M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences. They identified some of the material stocked on the premises as not genuine and not manufactured by M/S JRS Pharma. Harish Kumar was asked to supply the record regarding the purchased material; however, he was unable to do so. The representatives of M/s JRS Pharma visited the premises of M/s Ultra Drugs and stated that the stock of spurious drug material Vivasol was not manufactured by them. Harish Kumar disclosed that this material was supplied by M/s K.C. Overseas. A team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Logos Pharma on 16.05.2023, where the material was identified as spurious by Mr Jaya Prakash M, a representative of M/s. JRS Pharma. Sanjay Singh, Proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma and Pardeep Singh appeared in the office of the State Drugs Controller on 16.05.2023. Sanjay Singh identified himself as the proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma, while Pardeep Singh identified himself as a Data Entry Operator. They joined the investigation, Sanjay Singh disclosed that he had supplied spurious drugs to M/s K.C. Overseas, which were labelled as manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma and M/S Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. at the instance of M/s K.C. Overseas. The team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Allied Pharma and found that M/s K.C. Overseas had generated forged sale invoices in favour of M/s Allied Pharma showing the product name Explotab. The team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Allied Pharma and found that M/s K.C. Overseas had generated forged sale invoices in favour of M/s Allied Pharma showing the product name Explotab. This material was stated to have been manufactured by M/s Blue Craft; however, a note of M/s Allied Pharma was found to be manufactured by M/S JRS Pharma. It was found that M/s Allied Pharma had manipulated the invoices in connivance with M/s K.C. Overseas. Two sales invoices were generated against the same number, out of which one was for Sodium Starch Glycolate manufactured by M/s Blue Craft, and the other was for Explotab, manufactured by M/s JRS Pharma. These forged invoices were exchanged between M/s Allied Pharma and M/s K.C. Overseas. These invoices were recovered from the email. These two firms were involved in the supply of spurious drugs. M/s K.C. Overseas submitted a response that drugs were acquired from M/s Allied Pharma. M/s Allied Pharma was asked to disclose the details of the drugs supplied. M/S JRS Pharma also disclosed that no material was supplied to M/s Allied Pharma. Pardeep Singh made a statement that M/s Allied Pharma used to manufacture Explotab and Vivasol and supply them to M/s K.C. Overseas. M/s K.C. Overseas also issued a response to the notice that the batches supplied to M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences were purchased from M/s Allied Pharma. The team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Park Pharmaceuticals situated at Village Kalu Jhanda and found three (3) Khaki corrugated boxes, out of which two contained spurious drugs. The team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Allied Pharma on 02.06.2023 and found that there was nil stock of (SSG) Sodium Starch Glycolate of M/s Blue Craft and some stock of (CCS) Cross Carmellose Sodium of M/s Amster; however, no sales bills were produced. The agreement between M/s JRS Pharma and M/s Allied Pharma was demanded from M/s JRS Pharma. M/S JRS Pharma replied that no agreement was ever executed with M/s Allied Pharma. The Directors of M/s KC Overseas joined the investigation on 19.06.2023 and produced the record, which shows that the drugs having the make JRS were manufactured by M/s Allied Pharma. They also produced the record of supplying the drugs to M/s Ultra Drugs, M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences, M/s Logos Pharma and others, which were manufactured by M/s Allied Pharma. The Directors of M/s KC Overseas joined the investigation on 19.06.2023 and produced the record, which shows that the drugs having the make JRS were manufactured by M/s Allied Pharma. They also produced the record of supplying the drugs to M/s Ultra Drugs, M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences, M/s Logos Pharma and others, which were manufactured by M/s Allied Pharma. The Drugs Inspector carried out further investigation and submitted a complaint before the competent Court. The bail petition filed by the petitioner was already rejected by this Court on 28.12.2023 and on 25.10. 2024 . The special leave petition No. 16894/2024 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 27.02.2025. The petitioner applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, which was rejected on 28.042025. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma Chemical, who had manufactured 28,975 kgs of spurious drugs with M/s K.C. Overseas. 7275 kgs of spurious drugs have been recovered at Baddi, Barotiwali, and Nalagarh areas. The petitioner would abscond and obstruct justice; he would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence if released on bail. The allegations against the petitioner are serious, which adversely affect society. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Ms Shradha Karol, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. 5. Ms Shradha Karol, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the co-accused Harish Kumar was released on bail in Cr.MP(M) No. 2161 of 2024 decided on 24.12.2024. Another co-accused, Rishab Singh, was released on bail by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 2960 of 2024 decided on 10.01.2025. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that this Court had already held in CrMP(M) No. 1966 of 2024 that the role of the petitioner is distinct from the role of Directors of M/s K.C. Overseas and the principle of parity did not apply to the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the order passed by this Court, and the special leave petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies where there is a change in circumstance. The petitioner had challenged the order passed by this Court, and the special leave petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies where there is a change in circumstance. There is no change in the circumstances in the present case, and the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. It is undisputed that the earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. It was held in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dismissed, a subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed: “Once that application was rejected, there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of little or no consequence. 'Between the two orders, there was a gap of only two days, and it is nobody's case that during these two days, drastic changes had taken place necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed, reversing all earlier orders, including the one rendered by Puranik, J., only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact situation. In such cases, it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him. 9. Similar is the judgment delivered in State of M.P. v. Kajad , (2001) 7 SCC 673 , wherein it was observed: - 8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. 9. Similar is the judgment delivered in State of M.P. v. Kajad , (2001) 7 SCC 673 , wherein it was observed: - 8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking a review of the earlier judgment, which is not permissible under criminal law, as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [ (2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments. 10. Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 that where an earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court has to consider the rejection of the earlier bail application and then consider why the subsequent bail application should be allowed. It was held: “11. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration, if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent bail application should be granted.” 11. A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja , (2005) 8 SCC 380 , wherein it was observed: 9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents. 12. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents. 12. This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra , (2018) 11 SCC 458 , wherein it was observed: 30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for the grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. 13. It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of Maharashtra , 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, that a successive bail application can be filed if there is a material change in the circumstances, which means a change in the facts or the law. It was observed: 7. It needs to be noted that the right to file successive bail applications accrues to the applicant only on the existence of a material change in circumstances. The sine qua non for filing subsequent bail applications is a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstances settled by law is a change in the fact situation or law which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, a change in circumstance has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail application needs to be decided by the same Judge on merits, if available at the place of sitting. There needs to be clarity between the power of a judge to consider the application and a person's right based on a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstance creates in a person accused of an offence the right to file a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely different sphere, unconnected with the facts of a case. A material change in circumstance creates in a person accused of an offence the right to file a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely different sphere, unconnected with the facts of a case. Such power is based on the well-settled and judicially recognized principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders, and the litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the Court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of Court's time and that judicial discipline requires that such matter must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available, for orders. The satisfaction of material change in circumstances needs to be adjudicated by the same Judge who had earlier decided the application. Therefore, the same Judge needs to adjudicate whether there is a change in circumstance as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.” 14. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered based on the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court. 15. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the star witness of the prosecution has turned hostile; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. This submission will not assist the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/ 2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, and dacoity Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the commencement of trial. Bail cannot be granted because there are some discrepancies in the deposition, which affect the credibility of the victim. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the Accused. 15. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the Accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its final conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or the acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event that the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed. 17. In the case at hand, the victim has yet to be examined. Her mother, who, according to the case of the prosecution, is an eyewitness, has also not been examined so far. The High Court seems to have looked into a few discrepancies in the FIR compared to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code. This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of an Accused in a serious offence like rape.” 16. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground that the prosecution’s witness has turned hostile. 17. This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of an Accused in a serious offence like rape.” 16. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground that the prosecution’s witness has turned hostile. 17. A perusal of the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Harish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2024 : HHC : 15775 shows that Harish Kumar was released on bail because he was arrested on 11.05.2023, and the chances of the conclusion of the trial against him were held to be not so bright. The present petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2023. If the Coordinate Bench had held that the chances of the conclusion of the trial against the co-accused were not bright, the same finding would operate qua the present petitioner because both of them are being tried for the commission of the same offence by the same Court. Hence, the petitioner will be entitled to bail due to the delay in the trial. 18. It was submitted that this Court had earlier held that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the Directors of M/s K.C. Overseas because the role of the petitioner and the Directors of M/s K.C. Overseas in manufacturing the spurious drugs was different. This finding will not assist the prosecution because the bail is being sought on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial and not on the ground of merit. Thus, any prima facie finding on merit in the previous petition will not help the prosecution. 19. The State has not challenged the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 2161 of 2024 granting bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial or the order passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 2960 of 2024. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, justifying the grant of bail, have attained finality. It is impermissible for the State to challenge these findings in the bail petition filed by the present petitioner. 20. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. It is impermissible for the State to challenge these findings in the bail petition filed by the present petitioner. 20. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner, while on bail, will abide by the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed to do so through a written hukamnama. (ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending a visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (v) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (vi) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 21. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 22. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever, on the merits, of the case. 23. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 24. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.