Chattisgarh High Court
Khemram Bani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:23335
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4636 of 2026
Khemram Bani S/o Late Narayan Prasad Bani Aged About 63 Years
(Khemraj Wrongly Mention In Page No. 12) R/o Baniyapara, Sarangarh,
District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ...Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Director, Food And Drugs And
Cosmetic Administration/ Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
Digitally
signed by
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
15:07:58
+0530 Order on Board
15.05.2026
1.The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.01/2025, registered at Deputy Director, Food And Drugs And Cosmetic Administration/ Department, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section Under Sections 18(a)(i) read 2 with Section 17(B)(c), 17(B)(d), Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rule 95 and 96 (1)
(i)(A)(b) of The Drugs Rules, 1945 and Section 18(c) read with Section 3(f) & 18(a) and Section 27(c), 27(d), 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the Assistant Drug Controller, Food and Drug Administration Raipur has passed an order dated 10.11.2025 and in pursuance of the said order the joint inspection was conducted at Nagpur Golden Transport Gogoan, Ring Road No.2, Near Sondongari Nala. During the course of joint inspection, the builty i.e. GR No. 3550923 dated 24.09.2025 send by Nagpur Golden Transport Indore and GST Bill No. 000758 dated 24.09.2025 in the name of Saraswati Medical Store Sarangarh was inspected and during the course of inspection, it was revealed that certain medicines send by Maa Bijasan Medicos Indore were of sub-standard. The said medicines were seized on 10.12.2025 and the samples were taken and were send for chemical examination at State Medicine Laboratory Raipur and as per the report, the said medicines were found to be sub-standard, thereafter, the medical store run by the applicant was inspected and during the course of inspection the Mobile of the son of the applicant was also anticipated and in the gallery of the said mobile the photograph of the cover of one medicine found.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has been running a medical store for more than 30 years under the name and style of M/s. Saraswati 3 Medical Store, being its sole proprietor, and the drug licence stands duly issued in his name by the Health and Family Welfare Department. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is about 63 years of age and is suffering from arthritis and cervical- related ailments. It is argued that the applicant had never directly placed any order with Maa Bijasan Medicos, Indore, nor was he aware of any alleged supply of sub-standard medicines by the said firm. The applicant had only placed orders with the co-accused, namely Prakash Agencies, Bhatapara, a wholesaler and stockist dealing in various pharmaceutical products, and it was the said agency which allegedly placed orders with Maa Bijasan Medicos, Indore. It is further submitted that the medicines seized from the transport agency were never ordered by the applicant and there is no material available on record to establish that he had any direct nexus or transaction with Maa Bijasan Medicos. Learned counsel contends that the applicant cannot be held liable for any alleged supply of sub-standard medicines as he is neither the purchaser from nor directly connected with the said supplier. It is also submitted that even the address of the sender was found to be frivolous, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case and indicates the possibility of false implication, possibly at the instance of business competitors. In the absence of any cogent material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence, learned counsel submits that the applicant deserves the benefit of bail.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed in the present case.
4
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, and that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 13.04.2025, coupled with the fact that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed.
7. Let applicant, Khemram Bani, involved in Crime No.01/2025, registered at Deputy Director, Food And Drugs And Cosmetic Administration/ Department, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section Under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Section 17(B)(c), 17(B)(d), Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rule 95 and 96 (1)(i)(A)(b) of the Drugs Rules, 1945 and Section 18(c) read with Section 3(f) & 18(a) and Section 27(c), 27(d), 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940., be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.5
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure him presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav