1 CGHC010278772026 2026:CGHC:33177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6973 of 2026 1 - Rochak Agrawal S/o Satish Chandra Agrawal Aged About 34 Years Proprietor of M/s Maa Bijasan Medicos, 25 Gadi Adda, Juni Indore (M.P.), R/o 109/1, C, Shri Vidhya Palace, Chhota Bangarda Road, Indore, M.P. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Drug Inspector, Office Of The Deputy Director, Department Of Food And Drugs Administration, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhoi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. This is the first application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case/Remand No. 01/2025 instituted by the Office of the Drug Inspector, Food and RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 Drugs Administration, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(c) read with Section 3(f) and 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sections 17(b), 17B(c) and 17B(d) of the said Act and Rules 95 and 96(1)(i)(A) & (b) of the Drugs Rules, 1945. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that pursuant to the directions of the Assistant Drug Controller, Food and Drugs Administration, Raipur, a joint inspection team conducted an inspection on 10.12.2025 at the premises of Nagpur Golden Transport, Gogaon, Raipur. During the inspection, the medicines found in a consignment were allegedly different from those mentioned in the accompanying invoices. Accordingly, the consignment was seized, samples were drawn in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and the same were sent to the State Drug Testing Laboratory, Raipur for analysis. The laboratory report allegedly declared the samples to be of substandard quality. Thereafter, during further investigation, the office of M/s Saraswati Medical Store, Sarangarh was inspected, wherein incriminating material, including photographs of the seized medicines, was allegedly recovered from a mobile phone. It is further alleged that the investigation revealed that the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, was involved in the procurement, supply and distribution of counterfeit/substandard medicines through various medical establishments and transport channels. On the basis of the material collected during the investigation, the present case was instituted against the applicant and other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences and the applicant was arrested on 13.04.2026. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2026 and has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.05.2026 and 14.07.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4636 of 2026 and 5551 of 2026, respectively. It is further contended that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further judicial custody. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that although the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations against the applicant, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, the period of custody of the applicant since 13.04.2026, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the parity of the case with the co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time to 4 conclude, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant – Rochak Agrawal involved in Case/Remand No. 01/2025 instituted by the Office of the Drug Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(c) read with Section 3(f) and 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sections 17(b), 17B(c) and 17B(d) of the said Act and Rules 95 and 96(1)(i)(A) & (b) of the Drugs Rules, 1945, 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 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 5 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ruchi