Bail cancellation for misreading drug-law requirements and ignoring evidence of spurious drugs was upheld.

Bail granted to an accused may be cancelled under Section 439(2) CrPC where the order is passed by misreading Section 19 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and by ignoring material facts. The High Court noted that the court below relied on bills and payment records but failed to examine whether the drugs were purchased from a licensed manufacturer, distributor, or dealer, and overlooked allegations that the drugs were spurious, bore identical strip codes, and that the main accused remained at large. On that basis, the bail order was treated as having been made on an incorrect statutory and factual foundation, and the bail cancellation application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the accused-respondent was liable to be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for misreading Section 19 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and for ignoring material showing that the drugs were spurious and not purchased from a licensed source.

Analysis: The bail order had proceeded on the footing that the purchases were supported by bills and payment records. It was found that the court below failed to consider the statutory requirement under Section 19 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the absence of complete purchase documents, and the fact that the accused had not established purchase from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor, or dealer. The record also showed that the drugs were alleged to be spurious, the strips bore the same code, and the main accused was still at large. The earlier order was therefore viewed as having been passed by ignoring relevant material and by misapplying the statutory framework governing liability for spurious drugs.

Conclusion: The bail cancellation application was rightly allowed and the bail granted to the accused-respondent was cancelled.

---