1 CGHC010223762026 2026:CGHC:29637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5551 of 2026 Surendra Kamnani S/o Late Murari Lal Kamnani Aged About 41 Years R/o 246, Sindhi Coloni, Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Director, Food And Drugs And Cosmetic Administration/ Department, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aakash Aahuja, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 29.06.2026, learned counsel for the applicant has filed a certified copy of the complaint through a covering memo, which is taken on record. 2. The applicant has preferred First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Criminal Case No. 01/2025, registered at- Deputy Director, Foot and Drugs and Cosmetic Administration/Department, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Section 17(B)(c), 17(B)(d), Section KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 18(a)(i) r/w 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) and 18(a) and Section 27(c), 27(d), 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during a joint inspection conducted by the officials of the Food and Drug Administration, District Raipur, certain pharmaceutical consignments were seized, namely Amoxycillin Potassium Clavulanate & Lactic Acid Bacillus Tablets I.P. (CUMOX CV-625) (5600 tablets), Cefixime & Azithromycin with Lactic Acid Bacillus Tablets (G CEF-AZ) (3500 tablets) and Cefixime & Azithromycin Lactic Acid Bacillus Tablets (ARRCEF-AZ) (900 tablets), which had been dispatched by Maa Bijasan Medicos, Indore in the name of Saraswati Medical Store, Sarangarh under Bill/GR No. 3550923 dated 24.09.2025 through Nagpur Doldan Be Transport, Indore. The seized medicines were sent for analysis to the Government Drug Laboratory, Raipur, where they were reported to be substandard. During the course of investigation, it was further revealed that the present applicant Surendra Kumar Kamnani was in regular contact with the supplier of the aforesaid counterfeit/substandard medicines at Indore and had allegedly placed orders for such medicines while making payments through his bank account. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, the applicant was implicated in the present case and after completion of investigation, the complaint has been filed before the competent Court. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant is merely working as a salesman in the concerned medical store and has no role in the manufacture, procurement or supply of any alleged substandard medicines. It is further submitted that the applicant has duly responded to all the notices and directions issued by the Drug Inspector and has specifically stated that he had never placed any purchase order with Maa Bijasan Medicos, Indore, nor had he procured any medicines from the said establishment and that the medicines referred to in the GST bills and other documents have no connection whatsoever with him or the medical store in question. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint has already been filed before the competent Court and charges have also been framed on 10.07.2026 and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is further submitted that the applicant has been suffering from partial paralysis for the last several years, due to which he has developed structural deformities and is unable to receive proper medical treatment while in judicial custody, resulting in swelling in his legs and lower back. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and further the owner of the medical store, namely Khemram Bani, whose role is more serious than that of the present applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4636/2026 vide order dated 15.04.2026, and the case of the present applicant, being merely a salesman, stands on a better footing. Therefore, on the 4 ground of parity, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. She submits that during the course of investigation, it was found that the applicant was in constant contact with the supplier of substandard medicines at Indore and had placed orders for procurement of such medicines while making payments through his bank account. She further submits that the report of the Government Drug Laboratory confirms that the seized medicines were substandard. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the offence affecting public health, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the complaint has already been filed before the competent Court and charges have also been framed on 10.07.2026, and further considering that the present applicant is merely a salesman of the concerned medical store and has no criminal antecedents, this Court finds that the owner of the said medical store, namely Khemram Bani, whose role is prima facie more significant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5 4636/2026 vide order dated 15.04.2026. The case of the present applicant stands on a better footing than that of the said co- accused. Therefore, considering the principle of parity, the absence of any criminal antecedents and the fact that no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let the applicant – Surendra Kamnani, involved in Criminal Case No. 01/2025, registered at- Deputy Director, Foot and Drugs and Cosmetic Administration/Department, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Section 17(B)(c), 17(B)(d), Section 18(a)(i) r/w 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) and 18(a) and Section 27(c), 27(d), 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 6 on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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. 10. 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 Kunal