The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a person accused of manufacturing and selling spurious/fake anti-cancer medicines.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has observed that the applicant has not been charged for some minor offence that has simple economic ramifications, rather he has been charged for supplying and selling of spurious life saving anti-cancer medicines and that he is part of an established crime syndicate.
The complaint alleged the involvement of several accused persons in the procurement, manufacturing and sale of spurious anti-cancer medicines.
In the FIR, it has been alleged that the primary accused, namely Viphil Jain and Suraj Shat, in collusion with their several associates, were engaged in the illegal procurement of empty vials and raw materials of anti- cancer drugs such as Keytruda and Opdyta. These counterfeit drugs were allegedly manufactured and distributed in the market to unsuspecting cancer patients.
Based on the FIR, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) initiated ECIR under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The applicant was initially included as a witness in the investigation, however, following further investigation, he was named as accused in the first supplementary prosecution complaint dated 20th July, 2024 filed before the Special Judge under the allegations of money laundering.
The applicant was arrested by the ED and remanded to custody. In the meanwhile, the applicant applied for interim bail before the learned Special Judge citing the ailing health of his father, however, the said interim bail application was rejected. Subsequently, the applicant applied for interim bail before this Court which was granted. The Special Judge took cognizance of the ECIR.
The applicant contended that entitled to be released on regular bail as the quantum of proceeds of crime attributed to him is Rs. 7,45,000 which is significantly below the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore as prescribed under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA.
The applicant contended that any purchase of anti-cancer drugs, if made, was under a bonafide belief that they were genuine and procured through legitimate banking channels. The applicant paid Rs. 1.20 Lakhs per vial, which is indicative of a legitimate business transaction. The prosecution has failed to establish that the applicant knowingly purchased spurious drugs or intended to benefit from illegal transactions.
The department contended that Section 45 of the PMLA, the accused must satisfy the mandatory twin conditions to be eligible for bail, which are, that the prosecution must be given proper opportunity to oppose the bail application and when opposed, the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence, and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The court noted that the applicant, if on interim bail, is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of seven days from today and the sureties/bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. If the applicant fails to surrender as directed, the investigating agency shall take appropriate steps to take the applicant in custody to secure his presence.
Case Details
Case Title: Lovee Narula Versus ED
Case No.: Bail Appln. 3808/2024
Date: 28th January, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal
Counsel For Respondent: Arkaj Kumar
Read More: Delhi High Court Disapprove Dept’s Endeavours To Attribute Excess Profits To Adobe
