Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State, Rep. by its SHO, CBCID Police Station, Police Headquarters, Puducherry

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State, Rep. by its SHO, CBCID Police Station, Police Headquarters, Puducherry - Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
Decided On : 20-07-2026

Important Points

Cancellation of bail requires proof of cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as perversity or legal error. A constitutional violation during the arrest process, specifically the failure to furnish grounds of arrest, constitutes a valid procedural basis for granting bail that precludes cancellation despite the gravity of allegations.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail and Pre-trial Procedure

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA : S.318(4)

Headnote

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 483(3) and 439(3) - Cancellation of bail - Principles governing cancellation of bail - An order cancelling bail can be passed only when there exist cogent and overwhelming circumstances - Court must ensure that liberty of an accused is balanced with the interest of society - Cancellation is not limited to supervening circumstances but requires proof of perversity, misapplication of material, or violation of constitutional rights by the trial court. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 17)

(B) Arrest - Non-furnishing of grounds of arrest - Constitutional safeguards - Failure to provide reasons or material for arrest to the accused violates fundamental rights - Such violation serves as a valid ground for granting bail and prevents cancellation thereof. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail and anticipatory bail granted to the accused in a criminal case involving the alleged manufacture and distribution of counterfeit medical products. The petitioner contended that the offence was grave, impacting public health and society, and raised concerns regarding potential evidence tampering and the professional nature of the alleged network.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the lower court had based its decision on the failure of the prosecution to adequately furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused, which constituted a violation of constitutional rights. No additional material was provided to justify the necessity for further custodial interrogation regarding the substantive offences charged.

Issues: Whether the order granting bail was perverse or illegal, and whether there exist cogent and overwhelming circumstances to justify the cancellation of the liberty granted to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that appellate interference with a bail order is permissible only upon demonstrating perversity or clear illegality in the court below. Because the lower court correctly prioritized the breach of constitutional safeguards regarding the procedure of arrest, the bail order remained sustainable and did not warrant cancellation.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Kumaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr. A. Ramesh Kumar.
For the Respondents: M/s. G. Vrinda, for Mr. K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor.

ORDER :

The present Criminal Original Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in Crl.M.P.Nos.2292 and 2290 of 2025, dated 02.12.2025, whereby the learned Principal Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to A1/Vivek @ Vivek Venkatesan, A2/Raja @ Valliappan and bail to A3/A.K. Rana in Crime No.27 of 2025.

2. The present case pertains to the counterfeiting of medicines. The petitioner herein is the manufacturer of two medicines, namely, Rosuvas and Montek LC. According to the prosecution, the respondents/accused counterfeited the said medicines, thereby committing a grave offence affecting public health, as the medicines are used for the treatment of cardiac ailments and allergies.

3. The main ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the present case involves a grave economic offence coupled with a serious public health offence, which directly affects the common man’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, having regard to the magnitude, reach and organised nature of the operation, the learned Principal Sessions Judge ought not to have granted bail, as the offences alleged are serious in nature and affect society at large. It is his further contention that the accused are key participants in a vast organised network engaged in the manufacture, storage and distribution of counterfeit medicines across various States. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is every likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence relating to the nationwide supply network if they are not subjected to custodial interrogation. It is also submitted that the accused had manufactured the counterfeit medicines in an unlicensed premises without adhering to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), thereby exposing consumers to treatment failure, toxicity, organ damage and even death. Hence, he would contend that the order granting bail and anticipatory bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.

4. In addition thereto, the learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon certain supervening circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the grant of bail. According to him, the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2025 was transferred to the CBI, as the criminal network extended beyond the territorial limits of the State. Pursuant thereto, the CBI registered a case in RC2172026A0006/CBI/AC-II/New Delhi. It is further submitted that A2/Raja @ Valliappan, along with other accused, attempted to derail the investigation by offering illegal gratification to the Investigating Officer, namely, Mr. Shri Pradeep Singh, Inspector, Crime Branch, Delhi Police. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the accused have violated the conditions of bail and that their release has deprived the CBI of the opportunity to subject them to custodial interrogation. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish Mishra, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321, Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, and Vipin Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 518. Hence, he prayed for cancellation of the bail and anticipatory bail granted to the accused.

5. Apart from the above, the CBI was represented by Ms.G.Viranda for Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor. Though sufficient opportunity had been granted, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the CBI. The learned counsel appearing for the CBI however, had magnanimity to produce a copy of the e-mail dated 03.07.2026, which again contain the instructions to seek time for filing a counter affidavit.

6. Per contra, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was stoutly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for third respondent in Crl.O.P.No