A Delhi Court on Saturday granted bail to Navneet Kalra in oxygen concentrator black marketing case. .The order was pronounced by Judge Arun Kumar Garg, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts after hearing counsel for Kalra and the prosecution. .The Court opined that no purpose would be served by keeping Navneet Kalra in further custody. .It said,"..in my considered opinion, no purpose will be served by keeping the accused behind bars in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (Supra) that the purpose of bail is neither preventive nor punitive but to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail and the right to bail is not to be denied to the accused merely because sentiments of the community are against the accused.".Bail was thus granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties of the like amount. .The Court observed that the case was primarily based upon the documentary evidence which had already been seized. .Concerns of evidence tampering and witnesses being influenced were rejected by the Court. "By directing the accused to join investigation, the plea of the state regarding investigation being at an initial stage and chances of the accused hampering the investigation can be taken care of.", the Court opined. .In its order, the Court recorded that "bail is a rule and commital to jail is an exception" and that the Supreme Court has "deprecated the practice of refusal of bail as a mark of disapproval" or to use it give an unconvicted person a "taste of imprisonment as a lesson"..The Court nonetheless opined that prima facie, there were reasons to believe that Navneet Kalra was involved in the commission of offence of Section 420 IPC (cheating) and violation of Essential Commodities Act. "As on date, on a bare perusal of case dairy it is apparent that prima facie there are reasons to believe that the accused is involved in commission of offence u/s 420 IPC and u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 3(2)(c) and (d) of the EC Act, 1955 read with para 26 of the DPCO, 2013, both of which are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.".Kalra's bail application was opposed by Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava on the ground that his intention was to cheat persons in vulnerable condition and make profit. .It was the prosecution's case that Kalra, along with other co-accused, "hatched a conspiracy" to wrongfully make money by "inducing" the public to buy his oxygen concentrators at an "exorbitant rate" amid a raging pandemic.."He's dealing with medical devices. He's an optician.. they have never taken permission. It was in Khan Chacha restaurant. He has not taken any precaution. There is no quality control management..Cheating in normal days is cheating. In these circumstances, the gravity has increased..their intention was to cheat and make profit," Shrivastava argued. .Shrivastava placed reliance on a report from medical devices testing laboratory, to contend that the seized oxygen concentrators were useless and in fact, harmful for the persons using it. .In response to Kalra's question as to why the police gave the oxygen concentrators to COVID centres if they were of inferior quality, Shrivastava informed the Court, "Police officers are also prone to be cheated. After they got to know that these oxygen concentrators, (were substandard, DM was informed).. if they were given to DM sahab, it was not done by our own. There was direction by Delhi High Court to hand over..".As far as import of the same brand of oxygen concentrators by actor Salman Khan was concerned, he added, "Government has liberalised the policy for needy persons and not greedy persons.. Salman Khan is not selling. I'm not defending him or something. But he's doing it free of cost.".Srivastava said that if released on bail, Navneet Kalra would tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. ."Justice Subramonium Prasad did not grant him relief. He still did not surrender. He was hiding himself. He was not the one who came.. this has given a bad name to society.. the bail should be rejected," Shrivastava concluded. .Counsel for Kalra, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa argued that no purpose would be served by keeping Kalra in pre-trial detention as no more recoveries have to be made from him. ."Bail jurisprudence is release on bail if custodial investigation is not necessary. Conduct a trial and convict a man. Convict him through procedure of law.", Pahwa told the Court today. .It was also argued that there was no inducement or misrepresentation as the information with respect to the products' capacity/output of around 30 percent was given on the website of the product. .He also asked why the Government of India had not stopped the import of the oxygen concentrators in question if they are of sub-standard quality. .Pahwa also highlighted that the Central government had admitted before the High Court that the price of the oxygen concentrators was unregulated and thus there could be no case of illegal profiteering against Kalra. .Pahwa said that Navneet Kalra would abide by any condition imposed on him and would also cooperate with the investigation. .Pahwa appeared along with Advocates Vineet Malhotra and Abhishek Pati. .Kalra's anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial court on May 13 on the ground that his custodial investigation was required to be carried out by Delhi Police to unearth the entire conspiracy..Subsequently, the Delhi High Court had declined to grant any interim relief to Kalra in connection with the case..After his arrest, Kalra was sent to police custody. Kalra was sent to 14-day judicial custody in the case by the Metropolitan Magistrate after it opined that no case was made out for further extension of police custody..Read the order:
A Delhi Court on Saturday granted bail to Navneet Kalra in oxygen concentrator black marketing case. .The order was pronounced by Judge Arun Kumar Garg, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts after hearing counsel for Kalra and the prosecution. .The Court opined that no purpose would be served by keeping Navneet Kalra in further custody. .It said,"..in my considered opinion, no purpose will be served by keeping the accused behind bars in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (Supra) that the purpose of bail is neither preventive nor punitive but to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail and the right to bail is not to be denied to the accused merely because sentiments of the community are against the accused.".Bail was thus granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties of the like amount. .The Court observed that the case was primarily based upon the documentary evidence which had already been seized. .Concerns of evidence tampering and witnesses being influenced were rejected by the Court. "By directing the accused to join investigation, the plea of the state regarding investigation being at an initial stage and chances of the accused hampering the investigation can be taken care of.", the Court opined. .In its order, the Court recorded that "bail is a rule and commital to jail is an exception" and that the Supreme Court has "deprecated the practice of refusal of bail as a mark of disapproval" or to use it give an unconvicted person a "taste of imprisonment as a lesson"..The Court nonetheless opined that prima facie, there were reasons to believe that Navneet Kalra was involved in the commission of offence of Section 420 IPC (cheating) and violation of Essential Commodities Act. "As on date, on a bare perusal of case dairy it is apparent that prima facie there are reasons to believe that the accused is involved in commission of offence u/s 420 IPC and u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 3(2)(c) and (d) of the EC Act, 1955 read with para 26 of the DPCO, 2013, both of which are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.".Kalra's bail application was opposed by Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava on the ground that his intention was to cheat persons in vulnerable condition and make profit. .It was the prosecution's case that Kalra, along with other co-accused, "hatched a conspiracy" to wrongfully make money by "inducing" the public to buy his oxygen concentrators at an "exorbitant rate" amid a raging pandemic.."He's dealing with medical devices. He's an optician.. they have never taken permission. It was in Khan Chacha restaurant. He has not taken any precaution. There is no quality control management..Cheating in normal days is cheating. In these circumstances, the gravity has increased..their intention was to cheat and make profit," Shrivastava argued. .Shrivastava placed reliance on a report from medical devices testing laboratory, to contend that the seized oxygen concentrators were useless and in fact, harmful for the persons using it. .In response to Kalra's question as to why the police gave the oxygen concentrators to COVID centres if they were of inferior quality, Shrivastava informed the Court, "Police officers are also prone to be cheated. After they got to know that these oxygen concentrators, (were substandard, DM was informed).. if they were given to DM sahab, it was not done by our own. There was direction by Delhi High Court to hand over..".As far as import of the same brand of oxygen concentrators by actor Salman Khan was concerned, he added, "Government has liberalised the policy for needy persons and not greedy persons.. Salman Khan is not selling. I'm not defending him or something. But he's doing it free of cost.".Srivastava said that if released on bail, Navneet Kalra would tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. ."Justice Subramonium Prasad did not grant him relief. He still did not surrender. He was hiding himself. He was not the one who came.. this has given a bad name to society.. the bail should be rejected," Shrivastava concluded. .Counsel for Kalra, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa argued that no purpose would be served by keeping Kalra in pre-trial detention as no more recoveries have to be made from him. ."Bail jurisprudence is release on bail if custodial investigation is not necessary. Conduct a trial and convict a man. Convict him through procedure of law.", Pahwa told the Court today. .It was also argued that there was no inducement or misrepresentation as the information with respect to the products' capacity/output of around 30 percent was given on the website of the product. .He also asked why the Government of India had not stopped the import of the oxygen concentrators in question if they are of sub-standard quality. .Pahwa also highlighted that the Central government had admitted before the High Court that the price of the oxygen concentrators was unregulated and thus there could be no case of illegal profiteering against Kalra. .Pahwa said that Navneet Kalra would abide by any condition imposed on him and would also cooperate with the investigation. .Pahwa appeared along with Advocates Vineet Malhotra and Abhishek Pati. .Kalra's anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial court on May 13 on the ground that his custodial investigation was required to be carried out by Delhi Police to unearth the entire conspiracy..Subsequently, the Delhi High Court had declined to grant any interim relief to Kalra in connection with the case..After his arrest, Kalra was sent to police custody. Kalra was sent to 14-day judicial custody in the case by the Metropolitan Magistrate after it opined that no case was made out for further extension of police custody..Read the order:
