Chattisgarh High Court
Devinder Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18731
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 603 of 2026
Devinder Singh S/o Rattan Singh Aged About 43 Years Proprietor- M/s Dsr.
Life Care, Village Gullarwala, P.O. Karuana, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan,
Himachal Pradesh, Resident House No.- 109 First Floor, Doon Apartment,
Sai Road Near Vishal Mega Mart, V.T.C Gullarwala (194), Distt.- Solan,
VAIBHAV (Himachal Pradesh) ... Applicant
SINGH
Digitally signed by
versus
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.04.23
17:53:49 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
23.04.2026
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 454/2025 registered at Police Station - Magistrate Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 17(b),18(a)(i),18(b),18(c), 27(b), 27(b)(ii) 27(d), 28(a) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.10.2022, the then Drug Inspector, Mr. Kishore Thakur, conducted an inspection at M/s Kishore 2 Medical Stores situated at Ward No. 10, Pipardula, Post Office Bhinodi, Tehsil Bilaigarh. During the inspection, it was found that the proprietor, Mr. Virendra Kumar Khunte, and the registered pharmacist, Ms. Isha Narang, were absent, and the shop was allegedly being operated by one Mr. Narayan Prasad Jatwar. During the course of inspection, four bottles (100 ml each) of "Mil Cough Syrup," bearing Batch No. DBL04332, manufactured in 01/2022 and expiring in 12/2023, purportedly manufactured by M/s DSR Life Care, were seized for sampling purposes. Thereafter, a portion of the sample was sent to the Government Analyst at the Drug Testing Laboratory, Kalibari, Raipur, on 21.10.2022 for analysis, and upon examination, it was reported that the active ingredient Guaiphenesin was found to be below the prescribed standard, and thus, the sample was declared sub-standard. During the course of investigation, replies were obtained from the supply chain entities, including the wholesale supplier M/s Kanish Biotech, Panchkula, Haryana, which disclosed that 2,091 bottles of the said cough syrup were procured from the manufacturing firm M/s DSR Life Care, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, and subsequently sold to the marketing firm M/s MSK Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Saraipali. The marketing firm, in its reply, stated that the entire stock had been sold, however, it failed to furnish complete sales invoices and could not provide records for 558 bottles, instead submitting only a list of buyers without license details. Further, the manufacturing firm M/s DSR Life Care, through its proprietor Mr. Devinder Singh, submitted its reply along with copies of drug manufacturing licenses in Form 25 and Form 28, as well as identity proof. The license revealed that Mr. Ravindra Nath Pandey was appointed as the Manufacturing Chemist 3 and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha as the Analytical Chemist in the said firm. On the basis of the aforesaid material and investigation, the present applicant firm M/s DSR Life Care has been implicated and charged for manufacturing and distribution of sub-standard drugs under Sections 17(b), 18(a)(i), 18(b), 18(c), 27(b), 27(b)(ii), 27(d), and 28(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, along with Rule 84(d) of the Drugs Rules.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that in the very same Complaint Case No. 454/2025, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhatagaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, similarly placed co-accused persons accused Nos. 5, 6, and 7 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court in M.Cr.C(A) No. 813/2025 vide order dated 09.06.2025; accused Nos. 8 and 9 have been granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C(A) No. 1084/2025 vide order dated 23.07.2025; and accused No. 4 has also been granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C(A) No. 1230/2025 vide order dated 13.08.2025. While granting such relief, this Hon'ble Court considered material factors, including the inordinate delay of more than two and a half years in filing the complaint from the date of inspection, the absence of any criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time. The applicant submits that these circumstances apply equally to him, and therefore, on the ground of parity, he is entitled to the same relief. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the seized sample was found to be sub-standard does not, by itself, establish the culpability of the manufacturer in the absence of clear, cogent, and direct evidence linking the applicant firm 4 to the alleged defect, particularly when the product has passed through multiple intermediaries in the supply chain. The applicant firm, M/s DSR Life Care, is a duly licensed manufacturer operating in compliance with the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the applicable Rules, holding valid licenses in Form 25 and Form 28, and employing qualified technical personnel as required by law. The firm had lawfully supplied 2,091 bottles of the cough syrup to a licensed wholesale dealer, and its role ceased thereafter, with no control over subsequent handling or distribution. The complaint itself reveals serious gaps in the supply chain, as the marketing firm failed to account for 558 bottles and did not furnish complete sales records or license details of buyers, thereby creating reasonable doubt regarding possible mishandling or tampering post-manufacture. It is also submitted that the complaint has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two and a half years from the date of inspection, which undermines the credibility of the prosecution case. The applicant has cooperated with the investigation, is not a flight risk, and his arrest would cause irreparable harm to his reputation and business; therefore, he is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail in the interest of justice.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute and the material available on record, and in view of the fact that the 5 similarly situated co-accused namely Vipul Agrawal,Akshat Agrawal, and Pooja Agrawal have already been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court MCRCA No. 813 of 2025 vide order dated 09.06.2025, this Court finds that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. Therefore, without making any further comment on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Devinder Singh, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.
(b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
(d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav