Pabitra Narayan Pradhan v. State of NCT of Delhi

16. The Applicant/Pabitra Narayan Pradhan, has sought regular bail on the ground that as per Section 479 BNSS, an undertrial who has completed one-third of the maximum imprisonment period, is eligible for Bail. The Applicant has already spent over two years in Judicial Custody in February, 2025, which is nearly one-third of the maximum seven-year sentence for the alleged offences.

17. It is asserted that the Applicant was apprehended from his house in Noida, on 10.11.2022. The Arrest Memo reflected date and time of arrest to be on 11.11.2022 at 7:30 AM. The Investigating Officer is duty bound to serve the Applicant with Notice under Section 41A CrPC, as per the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. However, the mandatory provision of section 41A CrPC, was blatantly violated as no Notice was served upon him.

18. Reliance is placed on the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Supreme Court issued clear directions emphasizing the need to prevent unnecessary arrests and reduce the burden of Bail Applications, especially in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The Court directed all States and Union Territories to adopt Standing Orders in line with Delhi Police‟s Standing Order No. 109/2020, ensuring compliance with Section 41A CrPC. It also Digitally cautioned that Courts must take strict view of arrests made without adhering to these provisions, reiterating that arrest is not mandatory and must be guided by the principles of presumption of innocence and procedural safeguards.

19. It is further submitted that as per the terms of Section 177 CrPC., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The Crime Branch, Delhi Police lacks territorial jurisdiction to investigate the present case, as the alleged offences of manufacturing, repackaging, labelling, and storage of spurious medicines, took place entirely outside Delhi, specifically in Gannaur Sonepat, Haryana and Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P., Noida, and parts of Gurugram and West Bengal. Moreover, as per the allegations, the money earned from the criminal activities, has also not travelled to Delhi. It has been used to purchase property in Gurugram, Durgapur West Bengal. Pertinently, the Chargesheet cites 16 victims, out of the which14 victims do not belong to Delhi.

20. As per the Chargesheet itself, no part of the alleged offence occurred within Delhi, and the entire cause of action arose in jurisdictions where the competent authorities are already seized of the matter, including a FIR registered in Ghaziabad. Therefore, Delhi Police cannot assume jurisdiction or investigate a case where no element of the alleged offence occurred within its territorial limits.

21. It is submitted that even otherwise, the offences alleged under the IPC are not made out. Notably, there is no Victim/Complainant; the FIR was registered solely on the Tehrir of ASI Rakesh Kumar of the Crime Branch. A bare reading of the Chargesheet reveals that in the absence of any Digitally aggrieved party, no offences under Sections 420/308/468 and 471 IPC are attracted.

22. Furthermore, Section 420 IPC requires a dishonest inducement or misrepresentation leading to wrongful loss to a specific person. However, there is no Complainant who claims to have been deceived or suffered a loss by purchasing spurious medicines due to any alleged misrepresentation by the Applicant.

23. Further, the ingredients of Section 308 IPC are also not satisfied. There is no Medico-Legal Case (MLC), nor any statement from an alleged victim asserting injury or adverse effect from the medicines. The record lacks any independent evidence to substantiate such allegations.

24. The offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are similarly not made out. As per Section 464 IPC, a necessary ingredient is that the accused must be the maker of the false document. The Chargesheet does not allege that the Applicant created or forged any document. On the contrary, the prosecution itself states that any such printing or packaging was carried out by Aristo Cartons Pvt. Ltd., located in Greater Noida, U.P.

25. The Chargesheet fails to justify the invocation of IPC provisions in the absence of a Victim or specific Complaint, making the entire investigation without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.

26. It is further submitted that the allegations in the Chargesheet, relate to offences under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27 of the D&C Act, which is a special Statute prescribing its own procedure for investigation and prosecution. As per Section 32 D&C Act, only a duly authorized Drug Inspector is empowered to initiate proceedings by filing a Complaint before the Special Court. It is a settled legal principle that a special law overrides general law, Digitally and therefore, the Delhi Police Crime Branch had no jurisdiction to register an FIR or investigate the matter for the provisions under D&C Act.

27. Moreover, the purpose of enacting the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was to ensure that alleged violations concerning the manufacture or sale of spurious medicines, are handled by trained and specialized authorities. The Delhi Police cannot assume investigative powers in such matters where the law explicitly requires a different mechanism.

28. The Applicant is made to suffer the rigors of Criminal Prosecution at two different places on similar/identical facts.

29. The Prosecution‟s case rests on the disclosure statements of the coaccused and the Applicant. However, the Applicant‟s disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence in view of the absolute embargo under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which safeguards against self-incrimination. Moreover, the disclosure statements of co-accused persons cannot be treated as substantive evidence against the Applicant, as per Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act; at best, such statements may be used for limited corroborative purposes and cannot form the sole basis of Prosecution.

30. Furthermore, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, a disclosure statement must lead to a recovery of facts not previously known to the police. In this case, the locations of the godowns in Loni (Ghaziabad) and Noida were already within the knowledge of the Police, rendering the alleged disclosure ineffective. Furthermore, the Applicant was not present at the site of any alleged recovery, particularly in Delhi, and the Investigating Agency has produced no evidence to show that he was at the relevant Digitally location at the time, making the reliance on co-accused disclosures wholly unsustainable.

31. Reliance is placed on the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (CRL. Appeal No. 152/2013) decided on 29.10.2020; Prem Prakash vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 9 SCC 787; Preeti Chandra vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3622; Raman Bhuraria vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 657.

32. It is submitted that in the case of Bharat Chaudhary vs. UOI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1235, the Apex Court while granting Bail observed that WhatsApp messages downloaded from the mobile phone of accused, cannot be treated as sufficient material to establish live link with other accused(s), at the stage of bail. Moreover, in the present case, the CDR in itself does not lead to any incriminating material. Reliance is placed on the case of Saloni Arora vs. State, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1669 observed that the record of the calls made from one accused mobile phone to another accused, cannot by itself, prove the role in conspiracy.

33. It is submitted that there has been neither recovery of any spurious medicine from the possession of the Applicant, nor is there any material to show that he was in conscious or constructive possession of such contraband. The Prosecution has failed to establish any link between the Applicant and the co-accused from whom alleged recoveries were made, and no independent witness has been cited to lend credibility to such recoveries.

34. The Bail is also sought on the ground of delay and protracted trial. It is submitted that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. There are 93 prosecution witnesses cited in the Chargesheet. The trial has not yet commenced as Charges are yet to be framed, while Application(s) under Digitally Section 227 Cr.P.C. of some of the accused persons seeking discharge, is pending adjudication before the Ld. trial court. It is, thus, submitted that the Applicant has suffered from prolonged incarceration.

35. Reliance is placed on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693.

36. Furthermore, the Bail is sought on the Doctrine of Parity. It is submitted that the following accused persons have been granted Bail: i. Anil Prashad Jaiswal was granted bail by the High Court of Delhi on 03.06.2024; Ram Kumar @ Harbir on 30.01.2024; Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Gappu on 19.07.2023; Ankit Sharma @ Anku @ Bhajji on 21.03.2023; and Aekansh Verma on 19.04.2023, by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi. ii. Additionally, Shahid Hussain and Prabhat Kumar were granted Bail by the Ld. ASJ, PHC, on 18.01.2023 and 13.04.2023, respectively. iii. Accused/ Aakash Singh Tomar has been granted Bail as well.

37. The Applicant has already spent over two years in pre-trial detention. The seriousness of the offence does not prevent the Court from granting Bail. Even if further investigation is needed, that alone is not a reason to deny Bail, since the Applicant is willing to cooperate fully.

38. Lastly, it is submitted that the Applicant is not a flight risk; has strong ties to society and there is no chance that he would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, especially since all relevant evidence has already been Digitally seized. The investigation is complete and the Chargesheet has already been filed.

39. Thus, a Prayer is made for grant of Regular Bail.

40. A detailed Status Report dated 30.01.2025 has been filed on behalf of the State.

41. It is stated that on 08.11.2022, information was received that one Dr. Pabitra Pradhan/Applicant herein, along with his associates, Shubham Manna and Dr. Anil, was indulging in the manufacture & sale of spurious life-saving cancer medicines, across India. Investigation ensued on the aforesaid information, and it was revealed that the alleged persons had recently shifted their godown from Neb Sarai to Tronica City, Loni, Ghaziabad UP, where on the directions of Dr. Pabitra Pradhan/Applicant, Shubham Manna and Dr. Anil, two persons, namely, Pankaj Bohra and Ankit Sharma @ Bhajji, used to pack spurious medicines used in treatment of Cancer.

42. On further verification, it was revealed that the Applicant and Shubham Manna shifted their rented accommodation from Neb Sarai to one Flat located at Sector 43, Noida, U.P. and were managing all operations from there. It further transpired that on the directions of Dr. Pabitra, his associates, namely, Pankaj Bohra and Ankit Sharma used to deliver spurious medicines at different locations in Delhi and these persons after arriving at their pre-decided locations in Delhi, used to book them through „We fast Delivery‟ & „Shri Triputi Balaji Courier‟ for delivery across the country.

43. On 10.11.2022, separate teams were constituted to intercept/track the movements of the alleged persons. A Team intercepted the movement of one accused person, Pankaj Singh Bohra at Bhairon Mandir, on one scooty No. Digitally UP27AZ1457, carrying one bag. On inspection of the bag, 19 cartons of Tagrisso Tablets and a plastic packing bag, containing boxes of the medicines, were recovered. On interrogation, he admitted that the recovered medicines are spurious and he disclosed that their Godown is situated at B- 314, Ground Floor, Back side, Sec-8, Tronica City, Ghaziabad U.P.

44. On the same day, his other associate, Ankit Sharma @ Bajji took the medicines from the godown and went to the Applicant at Noida, for delivery. The second team apprehended the present Applicant and Shubham Manna along with Ankit Sharma @ Bhaji. From the search of the Flat of these persons, spurious cancer medicines of 7 brands were recovered and the same were taken into police possession through Seizure Memo.

45. On verification, Sh. Amit Kumar, Manager Regulatory Affairs of AstraZeneca Company, in respect of Tagrisso 80 MG (Osimertinib Tab), reported/verified that the “Said Sample is COUNTERFEIT and could pose a patient safety risk”. Accordingly, FIR was registered and all four accused persons were arrested.

46. During interrogation of the said accused persons, it was revealed that the Applicant had completed his MBBS degree from Hubei University, China, in the year 2012. Thereafter, he worked with GTB Hospital, Delhi and Super Specialty Cancer Institute, Delhi as Junior Resident, during which he came in touch with Dr. Anil Jaiswal, who also worked in GTB Hospital as Junior Resident.

47. One Dr. Rasel, a native of Bangladesh, had also pursued his MBBS from Hubei University, China and was the batch-mate of the Applicant. Dr. Rasel, in the year 2018, came to Delhi and met with the Applicant and told him that he used to manufacture spurious medicines used in the treatment of Digitally cancer, and such medicines have a heavy demand in the market and are expensive too. He said that from selling of such spurious medicines, he gains the marginal profit.

48. Thereafter, the Applicant along with his other associates, allegedly started manufacturing spurious medicines used in treatment of Cancer. In the beginning, for packaging of the spurious medicines, they allegedly used the house of one co-accused Aakash Tomar at Krishna Vihar, Loni. Further, the accused persons procured the raw material from different sources and got the Tablets and Capsules prepared from co-accused Harbir who was resident of Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana.

49. At the instance of the arrested accused persons, a further recovery of huge quantity of spurious medicines, worth approximately Rs. 4.78 crores, was effected from their godown situated at 314, Sector-8, Tronica City, Loni Ghaziabad. On 12.11.2022, co-accused Harbir was arrested, who used to run a Manufacturing Unit in the name of M/s RMD Biotech at Ganaur, Sonepat. During interrogation, co-accused Ram Kumar @ Harbir disclosed that for manufacturing of spurious medicines, he used Maize Starch Powder & Calcium Carbonate and procured the strips & foil for printing from Dehradun. He disclosed, that as per the direction and demand of the Applicant, he collected 1 Lakh Incepta Company capsules shells from one Aekansh Verma, Zirakpur, Punjab, out of which he filled 13,500 Tablets of Incepta Company in his Manufacturing Unit.

50. He further disclosed that for manufacturing the spurious medicines, he used Tablet Compressor Making Machine, capsule filling machine & Alu- Alu Packing Machine. He used to procure the raw material, foil paper, etc. from Sonepat and Ambala in Haryana. A recovery of empty capsules shells Digitally of Incepta Company, approximately worth Rs. 80,000/- and Tablet Compressor Making Machine, capsule filling machine and Alu-Alu packing machine, was made from the Manufacturing Unit of co-accused Harbir.

51. On 13.11.2022, at the instance of the Applicant, other co-accused Aekansh Verma was arrested. He admitted that as per the demand of the Applicant, he purchased 10 lakh blank Incepta company capsules, from one Company based in Indore. Thereafter, co- accused Ram Kumar @ Harbir collected the delivery of 1 lakh capsule shells from him. He also disclosed that he has been in association with the Applicant for one year and he used to procure Tagrisso 80 Tablets, Tagrix80, Osiment 80 mg etc. medicines, which are used in treatment of cancer patients from the Applicant and used to supply them to the end user/patients.

52. At the instance of Aekansh Verma, 6 boxes of Tagrisso 80 mg containing a strip of 10 tablets in each box and two boxes of Palbonix 125 mg containing 21 capsules in each box, were recovered from his rented accommodation situated in Zirakpur, Punjab. As per Aekansh Verma, the recovered medicines were supplied to him by the co-accused persons, the Applicant and others, for supplying the same to end users.

53. As per MRP, a strip of Tagrisso has the cost of Rs. 2,04,000/- and these accused persons by selling the spurious medicines, used to make a huge profit.

54. During further course of investigation, accused persons namely Prabhat Kumar, Antu Shah, Shahid Hussain Khan, Aakash Singh & Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Gappu have also been arrested in the present case on 14.11.2022, 15.11.2022, 15.11.2022, 26.11.2022 and 27.11.2022, respectively. Digitally

55. Sections 308 and 201 IPC were added in the present FIR and the main Chargesheet against the arrested Accused Persons was submitted in Court on 10.01.2023. After filing of the Chargesheet, Examination Report of the samples taken by the Team of Drug Inspectors of Central Government has been received, in which 16 out of 25 samples were declared “Not of Standard Quality”.

56. Medical Board of AIIMS Hospital has given the Opinion that “These medicines may be harmful in view of less efficacy. If efficacy is less and compromised, the patients can have progression of cancer or relapse of the cancer. In view of the above, the patient's cancer progresses and/or relapses this may result in death of patient”.

57. It is submitted that in view of the CDR, WhatsApp Chats, the present Applicant was actively involved in commission of a serious offence. Hence, the Bail Application is strongly opposed.

58. Second Status Report dated 30.06.2025 was filed stating that the Applicant had earlier requested and was granted three months of Interim Bail on 28.02.2025 till 01.07.2025, due to multiple medical problems. The Applicant has also applied to extend the Interim Bail for another 90 days for the same medical reasons. On 30.06.2025, the Court directed that the Applicant‟s medical documents to be verified.

59. According to the Doctor‟s Report, the Applicant is suffering from piles and fissure and visited the hospital on 22.06.2025 and 25.06.2025. The Doctor advised surgery for this condition. However, it is noted that the Applicant was granted Interim Bail on 03.04.2025 for treatment of multiple medical issues, but only visited the doctor on 27.05.2025 i.e. after a gap of Digitally 53 days. This delay raised doubts about the genuineness of the medical condition.

60. Thus, the Bail Application is liable to be rejected. Submissions heard and record perused. Parameters for Grant of Bail:-

61. Before assessing the contentions of the Applicant for grant of Bail, it is imperative to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein it was held that while emphasising that it is incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point, it also succinctly laid down the parameters that have to be considered for grant of Bail as following:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

62. On these parameters, the case of the Applicant for Bail may be considered. Digitally Jurisdiction of the Delhi Police:-

63. The Applicant has contended that the Delhi Police cannot assume jurisdiction or investigate a case where no element of the alleged offence occurred within its territorial limits.

64. The Applicant herein was apprehended on 08.11.2022, on the basis of a secret information that he, along with his other associates Shubham Manna and Dr. Anil, makes spurious medicines used in the treatment of cancer and supplies them in Delhi-NCR. Though the raid was conducted at the Noida premises of the Applicant, however, as per the investigations, substantial part of the selling and distribution of the spurious medicines took place within Delhi.

65. A substantial part of the alleged criminal conspiracy and distribution network operated within Delhi‟s territorial limits. The accused persons used Delhi as a crucial centre for their distribution operations, with Pankaj Bohra and Ankit Sharma delivering spurious medicines in Delhi before dispatching them nationwide through courier services. Also, as per the Prosecution, spurious medicines were being distributed pan India and two victims, were located in Delhi.

66. This objection of Territorial jurisdiction, is not tenable in the Bail Application. FIR under IPC and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act:-

67. The Applicant has contended that the Police lacks competence to investigate cases under the D&C Act, which is a special enactment with its own investigative machinery. The Applicant argues that since the FIR was registered under both IPC provisions and the D&C Act, the entire Digitally investigation is vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction with the Police for investigation of offences under the special statute.

68. At the outset, it is pertinent to refer to the recent judgement of Union of India vs. Ashok Kumare Sharma, in Crl. Appl. 200/2020 decided on 28.08.2020, wherein after discussing all the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C, it has been held as under:- “150.I. In regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, in view of Section 32 of the Act and also the scheme of Cr.P.C, the police officer cannot prosecute offenders in regard to such offences. Only the persons mentioned in Section 32 are entitled to do the same.

150. II. There is no bar to the Police Officer, however, to investigate and prosecute the person where he has committed an offence, as stated under Section 32(3) of the Act, i.e., if he has committed any cognizable offence under any other law.

150.3. Having regard to the scheme of Cr.P.C and also the mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a conspectus of powers which are available with the Drugs Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a police officer cannot register an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C, in regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act and he cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of Cr.P.C. … ”

69. Therefore, the Applicant‟s contention, while correct with respect to the D&C Act provisions, fails to appreciate the fundamental distinction between investigation of offences under special statutes and offences under IPC. In the instant case, as has been noted in Ashok Kumar Sharma, (supra), the authority of the Drugs Inspector under the D&C Act also includes the power to investigate for the offences under IPC, but that does not take away Digitally the authority of the Police to proceed and investigate into the offences under IPC. The Police indisputably has competence and authority to investigate offences under IPC while the Drugs Inspector in terms of Section 32 D&C Act has the authority to file the Complaint for offences under D&C Act. S.32(3) D&C Act further provides that this does not prevent any person from. Being prosecuted under any other law for any act of omission thereby providing that a person can be investigated by the Police for the offence under IPC and prosecuted as well for offences that may arise in the same transaction.

70. This is also evident from the fact that while the initial FIR was registered under both IPC provisions under Sections 274/275/276/420/468/471 and also Section 18(a)(i)/27 D&C Act, the final Chargesheet has been filed exclusively under IPC offences.

71. This contention of the Applicant has no merit. The Nature of Allegations:-

72. The allegations are that the Applicant, along with his associates, indulged in manufacturing and selling of spurious life-saving medicines to the patients suffering from cancer across the country. The raiding team apprehended the present Applicant along with other co-accused persons, who were residing in Noida. Upon search of the said Flat, spurious cancer medicines of seven brands were recovered and the same were taken into Police possession through Seizure Memo.

73. The Applicant, being an MBBS graduate, possessed the requisite medical knowledge and expertise which instead of being used for the benefit of Patients, unfortunately led the Applicant to make easy money by running this entire criminal syndicate of Manufacture and Distribution of spurious Digitally Cancer Medicines. The investigations have revealed that the Applicant is not merely a peripheral participant, but has been found to be one of the main conspirators and kingpin of this crime syndicate. He was the mastermind who coordinated with various co-accused persons including Dr. Anil, Ram Kumar @ Harbir (the manufacturer), and others. It was at the directions of the Applicant that spurious medicines were manufactured, packaged, and distributed across the country.

74. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in a similar case of Viphil Jain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3093/2024 decided on 27.09.2024, while rejecting the Bail of the Applicant/Viphil Jain in FIR under Sections 274/275/276/420/468/471/120B/34 IPC, held that the Applicant who was engaged in a racket of manufacture and supply of spurious injections, had experience in the field of pharmacy and was wilfully involved in this life threatening and ill-perceived business. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

Digitally co-accused, but the ground of parity cannot be applied to the Petitioner herein as he is the main person who was heading the racket of manufacture and supply of spurious injections. He is aware of the entire network. He knows about all the persons who are involved in this network and the trail of money.”

75. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Nazish Alvi vs. State NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 1375/2024, decided on 09.05.2024 observed that while denying Anticipatory Bail, observed that manufacturing, selling or trading in spurious medicines is a crime against society as a whole, and in this case going by the allegations, the counterfeit medicines are life-saving drugs and since the medicines are allegedly being sold under the labels of reputed pharmaceutical companies, the chances of the medicines being passed off as genuine, are higher.

76. The present case is profoundly distressing because the alleged actions of the Applicant directly affects cancer patients who are already enduring immense physical and emotional suffering, desperately hoping for effective treatment and recovery. The actions of the Applicant and co-accused persons of manufacturing and selling counterfeit cancer medicines exploit vulnerable patients, causing greater torment and jeopardizing their lives. Such acts of greed transcend ordinary criminality; it strikes at the core of public health and safety, threatening a large population dependent on life-saving medicines.

77. The medical opinion obtained from AIIMS Hospital categorically establishes the grave consequences of the Applicant's actions. The Medical Board opined that “These medicines may be harmful in view of less efficacy. If efficacy is less and compromised the patients can have progression of Digitally cancer or relapse of the cancer. In view of the above, the patient‟s cancer progresses and/or relapses this may result in death of patient”.

78. The Applicant, being a qualified medical practitioner, was fully cognizant of these potentially fatal consequences, yet continued to be involved in such acts for monetary gain. The gravity of offence is extreme considering its impact pan India and the targets being the already suffering Cancer patients who face the likelihood of recurrence of this deadly disease. Parity and the Role of the Applicant:-

79. It is trite law that Bail cannot be granted solely based on the fact that co-accused individuals have been granted Bail; to apply the principle of parity, the individual role of each accused must be carefully considered.

80. The Applicant/Dr. Pabitra, was the main Kingpin who conceived the idea of manufacturing spurious life-saving cancer medicines for huge profits and systematically recruited other accused persons to execute different aspects of the conspiracy. His role was fundamentally different from other co-accused who were merely executed his directions.

81. The Applicant/Dr. Pabitra was the one who gave “directions” to all associates and managed the overall operations of the syndicate. Co-accused persons, namely, Pankaj Bohra and Ankit Sharma were involved in packaging and delivery of the spurious drugs at different location in Delhi. Co-accused, Ram Kumar @ Harbir was involved in manufacturing as per the Applicant/Dr. Pabitra‟s specifications. He ran a manufacturing unit called M/s RMD Biotech at Ganaur, Sonepat for manufacturing of the spurious medicines. Similarly, co-accused, Anil Jaiswal, who worked with GTB Hospital as Junior Resident where he came in contact with Dr. Pabitra but was not involved in the manufacturing of the drugs nor any recovery was Digitally made from him. Co-accused, Aekansh Verma used to procure raw materials and supplied these to other accused; Co-accused, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Gappu was the one who received the medicines from the supply chain.

82. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Viphil Jain, (supra) in similar circumstances, specifically noted that “the primary reason as to why this Court granted bail to the other co-accused is that they were only pawns whereas the petitioner herein is the kingpin of the entire racket”.

83. Likewise, in the present case, the Applicant‟s role as the main conspirator, his medical qualification and his role in establishing the manufacturing and distribution network, and his control over the entire operation distinguish him fundamentally from other accused persons who played subordinate roles. The Applicant/Dr. Pabitra‟s role as the architect of this heinous crime puts him on a different footing as the co-accused persons.

84. It is pertinent to note that Co-ordinate of this Court dismissed the Bail Application of co-accused/Shubham Manna vide Order dated 17.12.2024, on the grounds that he appears to be the main conspirator and the kingpin. It was noted that the co-accused/Shubham Manna has not only been engaged in the manufacturing, but also involved in the printing of fake Bar Codes on boxes of spurious medicines (from co-accused, Shahid who is on Bail). Moreover, an SLP was filed before the Apex Court against the said Order of dismissal of Bail, but the SLP was dismissed vide Order dated 17.02.2025.

85. The co-accused/Shubham Manna and the Applicant are cousins. It was infact, the Applicant who consciously involved in the spurious medicines business and directed the co-accused/Shubham Manna regarding keeping of accounts and placing bar codes. Digitally

86. Thus, the Applicant cannot be placed at par with the other coaccused persons. Delay and Period of Incarceration:-

87. The Applicant has contended that he is in Judicial Custody since 11.11.2022 and the trial has not commenced as the Applications of some coaccused for discharge, are pending consideration.

88. In Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403, the Apex Court has observed that mere delay in trial in grave offences cannot be used as a ground to grant Bail. It further observed that Bail must be rejected as a „rule‟, if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of Bail is not satisfied – that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ i.e. flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence.

89. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775, the Apex Court while relying upon State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 has observed that long period of incarceration cannot itself be the ground for grant of Bail.

90. Though the Applicant has been in the Judicial Custody for about two years and nine months, but the nature and gravity of the charges, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the prima facie evidence against the Applicant, his central role as the kingpin of the criminal syndicate, the serious threat to society posed by his acts, and the likelihood of evidence tampering given his extensive network and financial resources, over weighs the period of incarceration. Digitally Conclusion:-

91. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the Applicant is not entitled for grant of Bail. It is clarified that observations made herein are for the purpose of determination of Bail Application and is not an expression on the merits of the case.

92. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed, along with pending Application(s), if any.

JUDGE SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 Digitally