2025:CGHC:47818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1432 of 2025 Neelam Shrivastava W/o Ujjwal Shrivastava Aged About 58 Years R/o 30 Philaris Ville, Sky City, 07 Club Road, S.P. Ring Road, South Bopal, Shilaj Ahmedabad,Pin-380058 ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Drugs Inspector, Food And Drugs Administration, Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.09.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.01/2025 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 27(C), 27(d) and 36-AC of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.18 11:37:21 +0530 2. As per the complaint case dated 07.07.2021, the Drug Inspector, Shri Brijraj Singh, collected a sample of the medicine Raumax 400 TP (Favipiravir IP 400 mg), batch number TP-0321892. Upon testing, the said medicine was declared to be misbranded and spurious. It is further alleged that the said medicine was purchased from M/s R.B. Remedies Private Limited, Ahmedabad, which was directed to stop the sale and purchase of the said medicine. In the records submitted by M/s R.B. Remedies Private Limited, it was revealed that the medicine in question had been procured from Anisum Life Sciences, Ahmedabad, which was also ordered to stop the sale and purchase of the said drug. It is further the case of the prosecution that the recovered drugs were sampled and sent to the Government Analyzer/FDA for analysis. The report confirmed that the medicine was misbranded and spurious. The said drug was allegedly manufactured by Max Relief Health Care, Village Angi, Solan (Himachal Pradesh), but upon verification, the manufacturing unit could not be traced at the given address .The investigation further disclosed that the said spurious and misbranded drug had been sold through Arzoo Medical Store. The laboratory report dated 15.12.2021 confirmed that the medicine Favimax-400 had been declared misbranded under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, read with Rule 17 and 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Consequently, notices were issued to M/s Arzoo Medical Store. On the basis of evidence collected during investigation, a complaint case came to be filed against 14 persons across various states. The present applicant has been arrayed as accused No. 12 in the said complaint case. Hence, the present bail application has been preferred. 3. The applicant respectfully submits that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present complaint. She is a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents and has no knowledge of the alleged offence, as she is not the manufacturer of the impugned drugs. Upon receipt of notice, she duly furnished a proper reply and complied with the directions of the Investigating Officer by stopping the sale and purchase of the said medicine. It is further submitted that the reliance placed upon Rules 17, 17(b), 18(a)(i), 18(b), and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is wholly misplaced, as the said provisions were omitted vide S.R.O. 2136 dated 15.06.1957, and thus no liability can be fastened upon the applicant thereunder. Even if the matter is treated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, at best the allegations fall under Section 18(a)(i), 18(b), and 18(c), which pertain to manufacturing, selling, or stocking for sale, whereas no such allegation of manufacturing is attributed to the applicant. Section 27(c), which prescribes stringent punishment for manufacturing spurious drugs under Section 17-B, is inapplicable, and at most, Section 27(d), a minor offence. He further submits that one co- accused has granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1363 of 2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the present 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 made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record and other co-accused person has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1365 of 2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Neelam Shrivastava, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) she 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 her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) she shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her 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) she shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav