Delhi HC grants bail to accused in spurious anti-cancer drug manufacturing and distribution case

Delhi HC granted bail to petitioner accused of manufacturing and distributing spurious anti-cancer drugs through pharmacy in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Court noted petitioner was in custody since March 2024, charge-sheet filed, and evidence primarily documentary already with police. HC found minimal risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation since witnesses were official and evidence documentary. Applying Prasanta Kumar Sarkar parameters, bail granted subject to conditions.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue considered by the Court was whether the Petitioner should be granted bail in connection with FIR No. 59/2024, which involves allegations of manufacturing and distributing spurious anti-cancer drugs. The specific legal questions included:

• Whether there is a prima facie case against the Petitioner for the alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
• The nature and gravity of the accusations against the Petitioner.
• The potential severity of the punishment if the Petitioner is convicted.
• The risk of the Petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence if released on bail.
• The likelihood of the Petitioner influencing witnesses or repeating the offense.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The Court referenced the parameters set by the Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee for granting or refusing bail. These include the existence of prima facie evidence, the nature of the accusation, the severity of potential punishment, and the risk of the accused absconding or influencing the trial process.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court evaluated the evidence against the Petitioner, which primarily consisted of documentary evidence such as disclosure statements, WhatsApp chats, and call records. The Court noted that the evidence was already in police custody, reducing the risk of tampering. Additionally, most witnesses were official, minimizing the chance of them being threatened.

Key Evidence and Findings

The evidence against the Petitioner included his alleged involvement in a syndicate distributing spurious anti-cancer injections. The State argued that the Petitioner was a key distributor, receiving supplies from co-accused and further distributing them across India. The prosecution highlighted a money trail and other documentary evidence linking the Petitioner to the offenses.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied the parameters for bail consideration, emphasizing the documentary nature of the evidence and the fact that the Petitioner had been in custody since March 13, 2024. The Court found that the risk of evidence tampering was minimal, and the likelihood of the Petitioner threatening witnesses was remote.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Petitioner argued that the case was based on documentary evidence, reducing the risk of tampering. The State opposed bail, citing the Petitioner's involvement in a well-organized cartel and the serious nature of the offenses. The Court balanced these arguments, ultimately finding in favor of granting bail under strict conditions.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the conditions for bail were met, given the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The Court imposed several conditions to mitigate risks associated with granting bail.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court granted bail to the Petitioner, subject to several conditions designed to ensure his compliance and prevent any interference with the judicial process. These conditions included:

• Furnishing security of 1,00,000 with two sureties.
• Not leaving the NCT of Delhi without court permission.
• Attending all trial court proceedings.
• Reporting to the police station thrice a week.
• Providing operational mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer.
• Refraining from the business of supplying medicines until trial completion.
• Avoiding any tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
• Potential bail cancellation upon violation of any conditions.

The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not influence the trial's outcome.

---