IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 743 of 2011. Date of decision: 30.9.2011. Atul Kumar Gupta ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. N.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.220 of 2011 dated 15.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, under Sections 36-AC read with sub-section (3) of 22 clause ( c) of Section 27, section 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 420, 486, 34 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that a complaint has been lodged by the Health and Family Welfare Department, District Sirmour at Police Station, Paonta Sahib alleging that drugs are being manufactured by M/s Soliance Pharma Products, Vill. Surajpur in the premises of Himalyan Laboratories. The petitioner is the owner of the premises, which he had leased out to M/s Soliance Pharma Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Products. The petitioner apprehends his arrest on account of registration of the case. 3. The petitioner had filed bail application, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour on 13.9.2011. In the bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, it was the stand of the police that they did not find any offence under IPC against the petitioner but there is violation of Drugs and Cosmetic Act. The court below, however, granted bail to Saurab Behal and Anil Behal, whereas the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed. It has been stated that petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with direction of this court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Nishant Sarin, Drug Inspector. It has been stated in the status report that it has come in the investigation that Atul Kumar Gupta in the year 2005 had purchased 3 bighas 4 biswas land in village Surajpur for running a factory. In the year 2008, he obtained permission for manufacturing General section capsules in Himalayan Laboratories. In the year 2010, he got permission for manufacturing tablets and syrups. He did not manufacture any drug from 2008 to March 2010. In March 2010 in Himalyan Laboratories tablets and syrups were manufactured for one month. Thereafter, production was stopped. …3… 5. The petitioner on 5.5.2010 leased out M/s Himalyan Laboratories premises to M/s Soliance Pharma Products on lease amount of Rs.70,000/- per month. M/s Soliance Pharma Products without any licence started manufacturing drugs in the premises of M/s Himalyan Laboratories. The petitioner did not disclose this fact to authorities though he was aware of all facts. Thus, petitioner Saurab Behal and Anil Behal in conspiracy with each other have manufactured spurious and misbranded drugs in the premises and committed various offences. The prayer has been made for dismissing the application. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the police file. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was aware that M/s Soliance Pharma Products had been manufacturing spurious and misbranded drugs in the premises which have been rented out by the petitioner to M/s Soliance Pharma Products. The petitioner in conspiracy with Saurab Behal and Anil Behal has committed various offences. It has been stated that learned Sessions Judge has already granted bail to Saurab Behal and Anil Behal. The petitioner has placed on record copy of bail application No. 147-BA/22 of 2011 decided on 13.9.2011 by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan granting bail to Saurab Behal. It has not been stated in the status report that petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. In the status report dated 30.8.2011 submitted by the investigating agency in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, it has been stated that till then no case was made out against Atul Kumar Gupta under …4… IPC. Thus keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner, the petitioner shall be released on bail in FIR No.220 of 2011 dated 15.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, under Sections 36-AC read with sub-section (3) of 22 clause ( c) of Section 27, section 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 420, 486, 34 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating officer. The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the investigation in any manner. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of. Copy dasti. September 30, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.