Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR
M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
The State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Robin @ Himanshu Vijaykumar Taneja – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPLN] NO. 73 OF 2025
Decided On : 24-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Bail - Cancellation - Distinction between supervening circumstances and challenge on merits - Challenge to validity of bail order tested on whether lower court exercised discretion improperly or arbitrarily - Relevant considerations include prima facie involvement, nature of accusations, transactions indicating knowledge, multiple similar crimes. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
Tender floated for procurement of medicines - Successful bidder supplied samples tested spurious, lacking active ingredient - Chain: bidder received from middleman, who received from another middleman, who procured from accused, who obtained from unlicensed manufacturer - Accused linked via transactions and seized fake bills - Ten crimes registered against accused.
Findings of Court:
Accused played vital role with knowledge of spurious drugs - Bail granted without considering crucial financial discrepancies and seriousness - Order perverse.
Issues: Whether accused had knowledge of spurious nature; whether lower court properly considered financial transactions and evidence of racket in granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained huge bank inflows from upstream without outflows to manufacturer, coupled with cash-only insistence claim, leads to inference of knowledge of illicit manufacturing and supply - Lower courts must record prima facie views on key evidence like transactions in bail decisions, especially in serious economic offences endangering public health.
Result: Application allowed - Bail order quashed and set aside - Accused directed to be taken into custody.
For the Appellant : Shri N.B. Jawade, A.P.P.
For the Respondent:Shri L.G. Agrawal, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. spurious drugs supplied to govt hospitals via chain (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. non-applicant key racket link with unexplained transactions (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. no knowledge; transactions for property or cash payments (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. spurious drugs threaten health and public trust (Para 10) |
| 5. cancel bail if discretion improper or perverse (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. no supplier payments infer knowledge of spuriousness (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. multiple crimes and overlooked evidence justify cancellation (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. forged labels prove serious forgery offence (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
Heard the learned A.P.P. for the applicant/State and Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Non-applicant.
2. The present application is filed by the applicant / State for cancellation of bail granted to the non-applicant Robin in Crime No.57/2024 registered with Kalmeshwar Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275, 276, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 29.05.2025 by the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur in Criminal Bail Application No.811/2025.
3. The facts of the case are that, the accused Vijay Choudhary had purchased drugs i.e. Ciprofloxain Tablets 500 mg Recip-500 Tablets and supplied the same to accused Mihir Trivedi. Said Mihir supplied the said drugs to Hemant Muley, who was the successful bidder in the tender floated by the State Government. This Hemant Muley supplied the said drugs to the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Nagpur which were distributed to the various rural hospitals. The complainant – drug inspector had taken samples of the drugs and forwarded the same for analysis at Bombay, which report stated that the samples do not give identification test for the presence of Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride, and thus, the same is spurious under Section 17 -B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. On the basis of this material, the aforesaid crime came to be registered.
4. At the outset though the applicant State have invoked the provisions contained in Section 483[2] of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhs Sanhita (BNSS), seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the non-applicant, however, their application basically challenges the order dated 29.05.2025. Even a prayer is made to that effect for quashing and setting aside the same.
5. The learned A.P.P. submits that all the accused persons in the aforesaid crime have hatched a conspiracy. A tender was floated by the Government of Maharashtra for procurement of 422 medicines on 12.11.2021. The successful bidder in the said tender process was one M/s. Jaya Enterprises of which accused no.1 Hemant Muley is the proprietor. It is submitted that so far as the present non-applicant is concerned, allegations against him are that he has acted as a middle man between Vijay Choudhary and Amit Dhiman. Since Hemant Muley got the tender, he has contacted Mihir Trivedi; in turn Mihir Trivedi contacted Vijay Choudhary, and Vijay Choudhary contacted the present non-applicant Robin in order to procure the medicines. Robin – non-applicant has procured medicines from Amit Dhiman. According to the prosecution, this is a racket, and they are dealing in the spurious drugs, right from manufacturing till the supply of spurious medicines to the Government at various places i.e. Government Hospitals and Dispensaries.
6. The learned A.P.P. submits that so far as the present non-applicant is concerned, he has procured medicines from Amit Dhiman, who is the manufacturer of Animal Feed Supplementary. This Amit Dhiman is not having any valid licence to manufacture the medicines for human consumption. It is submitted that the non- applicant is the main link between Amit Dhiman and Vijay Choudhary. The non-applicant was having knowledge about manufacturing of the spurious drugs and, therefore, at low cost he has placed the orders with Amit Dhiman, and spurious drugs were procured for supply to Vijay Choudhary, who in turn has supplied it to Mih
