Successive bail applications require material change in circumstances; parity bail granted on unchallenged co-accused releases due to trial delay, overriding prior rejections without reviewing merits.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in complaint No. 14/2023 dated 07.07.2023 filed under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with Sections 17B, 36 AC, 18A, 18B, 18c, 22 (3) punishable under Sections 27(b) (ii), 27 (c), 28, 28(a) and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Drugs Act) and the Rules framed there under.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2023 by the office of the Drugs Controller, Baddi. He is the proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma. He has no criminal antecedents and was wrongly arrested. The petitioner had applied for bail by filing a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1966 of 2024, and was dismissed by this Court on 25.10.2024. Co-accused Harish Kumar was granted bail in Cr.MP(M) No. 2161 of 2024 decided on 24.12.2024. Another co-accused, Rishab Singh, was granted bail in Cr.MP(M) No.2960 of 2024 decided on 10.01.2025. The petitioner filed a special leave petition, which was registered as SLP Criminal No.16894/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, challenging the rejection order dated 25.10.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the bail petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Trial Court in case no reasonable progress was achieved within 18 months from the date of the order. The trial was conducted on 28.03.2025, 10.04.2025, 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 09.09.2025 and 10.09.2025. Statements of only two witnesses were recorded. The prosecution has cited 41 witnesses, out of whom 36 are to be examined. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India modified the earlier order dated 27.02.2025 in miscellaneous application with diary No. 40736/2025 and deleted para 2 wherein the liberty was reserved to approach the learned Trial Court after 18 months. Two accused have been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. Pradeep Singh has turned hostile. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that M/s Allied Pharma is the main accused who had procured spurious drugs for the co-accused. The petitioner, Sanjay Singh, is the proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma, and he is the key person who had contravened various provisions of the Drugs Act. Drugs Inspector conducted a preliminary inquiry and found that Sanjay Singh, Proprietor of M/s Allied Pharma, and Rishab Singh, a competent person of M/s Allied Pharma, Ankit Singla and Ankush Singla, Directors and Harish Kumar, a competent person of M/s K.C. Overseas Pvt. Ltd., were responsible for supplying spurious drugs to the various pharmaceutical manufacturing firms situated in Himachal Pradesh. This information was passed to the State Drugs Controller. The Drugs Inspector received a telephone call to join the investigation at M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences. A team of Drugs Inspectors visited the premises of M/s Pinnacle Life Sciences in the presence of independent witnesses and found Explotab, Vivasol and Flocel on the premises. These drugs had clear differences in the labels and packaging cartons. It was suspected that these drugs were spurious. Ten (10) samples (three samples of finished drug formulations, six samples of Explotab and 01 sample of Vivasol GP) were taken for testi