Back
Delhi HC Slams 'Deeply Disturbing' Media Blitz, Frees 5 in Spurious Cancer Drugs Case
In a scathing prelude to its judgment, the on , lambasted a series of front-page articles in The Indian Express for allegedly preempting courtroom queries and exposing unredacted WhatsApp chats between accused during ongoing bail hearings. Justice Girish Kathpalia cautioned that such coverage, if state-engineered, strikes at , though he refrained from definitive findings due to lack of evidence. Amid this controversy, the court granted regular bail to five men—Pravez Khan, Neeraj Chauhan, Suraj Shat, Rajesh Kumar, and Lovee Narula—arrested in a money laundering probe linked to an alleged racket peddling fake anti-cancer injections.
From Secret Tip to Syndicate Bust: The Cancer Drug Scandal Unfolds
The saga began in with a tip-off to about a syndicate manufacturing spurious cancer treatments like Nivolumab (Opdyta) and Pembrolizumab (Keytruda). Raids on a Moti Nagar flat uncovered Viphil Jain and Suraj Shat filling empty vials with cheap alternatives—fluconazole and dextrose—without licenses or bills. FIR No. 59/2024 invoked sections for cheating, forgery, and conspiracy.
jumped in with ECIR/DLZO-II/03/2024 under , alleging from sales routed via hawala and banks. Searches yielded Rs. 70.5 lakh cash and documents. A supplementary complaint named 16 accused, including the applicants: Pravez Khan (empty vial supplier), Neeraj Chauhan (vial procurer/distributor), Suraj Shat (filler/packer), Lovee Narula (distributor via family firms), and Rajesh Kumar (retailer). Notably, three applicants already had bail in the predicate FIR; two weren't even chargesheeted there. Applicants languished in jail 15-24 months as trial loomed indefinitely.
's Money Trail vs. Defenders' 'No Knowledge' Plea
's arsenal hinged on statements where applicants allegedly confessed roles, WhatsApp chats showing transactions, bank flows exceeding Rs. 3 crore collectively, and unverified vial recoveries. Counsel stressed guilt, under (not guilty + no reoffending risk), economic offence gravity, and non-arrests of co-accused like Sajid or Komal Tiwari despite similar/graver roles. They sought six more months for hawala probes, invoking prior bail rejections upheld by Supreme Court.
Defense counsel fired back: No incriminating recoveries from some; vials mostly genuine per forensics (e.g., Neeraj's seven Keytruda/Opdyta samples authentic); self-use on family disproves knowledge of spuriousness; statements involuntary in custody; selective arrests; transactions pre-dated racket; proviso to Section 45 inapplicable individually (under Rs. 1 crore each). Prolonged jail without trial violated , especially with 's investigative gaps—no end-user complaints, no hospital staff probes, hazy genesis.
Dismantling Confessions, Demanding Foundations: Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny
Justice Kathpalia dissected 's case, prioritizing Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022 SCC OnLine SC 929) and Prem Prakash (2024 INSC 637): Section 50 statements recorded post-arrest/in custody are inadmissible if self-incriminating, as makers lack "free mind" amid agency dominance—"a travesty of justice." He junked the "copy-paste" confessions as coerced, differing from a coordinate bench's reliance on them.
On proceeds presumption (), foundational facts—scheduled offence, tainted property link, accused involvement—must precede shifting burden. faltered: forensics showed most vials genuine; no doctor/pharmacist probes; no victim harm reports; headless transactions. WhatsApp chats? Routine business banter. Selective arrests vitiated fairness for a max-7-year offence. Precedents like Bhaskar Yadav (2026:DHC:813, SC-upheld), Vedpal Singh Tanwar (2025 SCC OnLine Del 4330), and Arvind Dham (2026 INSC 12) reinforced: prolonged incarceration trumps rigors absent speedy trial.
Prior bail denials? No from limine SLP dismissals ( Kusal Toppo , 2019 13 SCC 676).
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
"Such self incriminating statements when recorded under while the maker of the statement is in custody of , cannot be considered voluntary statements and must be discarded."
"The spectre of proceedings being sought to be influenced through media use of such nature is not just unacceptable but deeply disquieting and must be unequivocally deprecated."
"It certainly is discomforting to see that regarding an offence punishable with at the most 07 years incarceration, few of the accused are arrested and even after spending more than 02 years in jail have to suffer incarceration without trial till the maximum prescribed punishment."
"Merely because a person accused of an offence under is unable to establish source of his money, it cannot be presumed that the money is tainted, much less connected with the predicate offence."
Liberty Restored: Bail on Met
All five walk free on Rs. 1 lakh personal bonds + sureties, barred from leaving India sans trial court nod. The court found "reasonable grounds for believing" innocence—no clear proceeds, clean antecedents—and low reoffending risk. Trial unaffected; observations non-prejudicial.
This ruling recalibrates bail: custody confessions out, foundations first, paramount. For spurious drug rackets, it signals scrutiny beyond statements, potentially easing prolonged detentions amid investigative voids—while serving a stark media warning.
