1 2025:CGHC:40841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1230 of 2025 Neeraj S/o Rajkumar Aged About 38 Years Proprietor - M/s Kanish Biotech Plot No.242, Ground Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula, Haryana 134113. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Rambrijesh Prajapati, Drug Inspector, Office Of The Deputy Director, Food And Drugs Department, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 454/2025, registered at District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for offence under Sections 17(b), 18(a)(i), 18(b), 18(c), 27(b), 27(b)(ii), 27(d), 28(a) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Section 84(d) of the Drug Rules. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 28.10.2022, the then Drug Inspector, Mr. Kishore Thakur, allegedly conducted an inspection at M/s Kishore Medical Stores, located in Ward No. 10, Pipardula, Post Office - Bhinodi, Tehsil Bilaigarh. During the inspection, it was alleged that both the proprietor, Mr. Virendra Kumar Khunte, and the registered pharmacist, Ms. Isha Narang, were absent. It was further alleged that the premises were being operated by Mr. Narayan Prasad Jatwar at that time. During the said inspection, it was further alleged that four bottles (100 ml each) of MS Cough Syrup, bearing Batch No. DSL04332, with a manufacturing date of 01/2022 and an expiry date of 12/2023, were seized for sampling purposes. Subsequently, on 21.10.2022, a portion of the collected sample was allegedly sent to the Government Analyst at the Drug Testing Laboratory, Kalibari, Raipur, for analysis. It was allegedly found that the active pharmaceutical ingredient Guaiphenesin in the syrup was below the prescribed standard, and the sample was declared to be of sub- standard quality. It was also alleged in the complaint that the bulk/wholesale supplier in the drug distribution chain was M/s Kanish Biotech, located in Panchkula, Haryana, and that the requisite drug licence for the said firm was not submitted. However, in paragraph 29 of the complaint application, the respondent himself admitted that a copy of the wholesale drug 3 licence of M/s Kanish Biotech had indeed been submitted. Furthermore, in paragraph 50, it was acknowledged that on 30.12.2024, a copy of the identity card of Mr.Neeraj(Applicant), proprietor and competent person of M/s Kanish Biotech, issued by the Senior Drug Control Officer, Poly Clinic, Sector 10, Ambala City, was received via WhatsApp from mobile number 9812300032. The applicant has been implicated in the present matter and charged under Sections Sections 17(b), 18(a)(i), 18(b), 18(c), 27(b), 27(b)(ii) 27(d) 28(a) and rule of Drugs Regulation 84(d) Act, 1940. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated, with no prima facie evidence against him. The applicant asserts that he acted as a licensed wholesale distributor of medicines and drugs, supplying authorized products under a valid drug license. He emphasize that his role was limited to wholesale distribution, and he has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the applicant also highlights an inordinate delay of over two and a half years in filing the complaint, which he argue undermines the credibility of the investigation. Furthermore, the co-accused, namely, Vipul Agrawal, Akshat Agrawal and pooja Agrawal have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 813/2025 vide order dated 09.06.2025 on the ground that the complaint case has been filed by the respondent after a lapse of more than two and half years from the date of inspection and further the case of the present applicant 4 is identical to that of the co-accused persons, hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. He later submits that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, as all relevant documentary evidence is available or can be produced as required. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on legal precedents, including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and in the matter of X v. Arun Kumar C.K., reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 870. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused, namely, Vipul Agrawal, Akshat Agrawal and Pooja Agrawal have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 813/2025 vide order dated 09.06.2025 and further the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of dispute, the material available on record and the fact that co-accused persons, namely, Vipul Agrawal, Akshat Agrawal and Pooja Agrawal have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 813/2025 vide order dated 09.06.2025 on the ground that the complaint case has been filed by the respondent after a lapse of more than two and half years from the date of inspection and further the case of the present applicant 5 is identical to that of the co-accused persons, accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant- Neeraj is allowed on the ground of parity. If the applicant surrenders himself before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatagaon, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) within 20 days from today and furnishes a personal bond with a solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the said Court, he be released on bail. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil