UPENDRA KUMAR AMBAST Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under sections 272, 273, 420, 304, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 65(17), 65(18), 27(D) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner is running a medical shop under a valid license in his own premises. In the same premises the co-accused Dr. Pramila Roy is running a nursing home and, since the petitioner allegedly did not cooperate during the investigation by the raiding party, he has also been impleaded in this matter for keeping expired drugs and physician samples in his shop. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the Rule concerned petitioner is permitted to keep those samples not for sale but for return to the concerned manufacturer or supplier. Thus, it is contended that no offence is made out in keeping the same in the shop in view of the provisions contained in Rule 65 (17) (18) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945.