AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as the first accused in Crime No.06 of 2026 on the file of the respondent, on bail. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.07.2026.
A bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.1259 of 2026 was dismissed by a common order dated 10.08.2026, and it is thereafter that this petition has been presented.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
The case of the prosecution, as gathered from the First Information Report and the status report dated 31.08.2026 filed by the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Puducherry, may be summarised thus:
On 13.07.2026 at 23:55 hours, one Thiru. Rajkumar (40), Director of M/s. APA Drugs and Formulations, a pharmaceutical marketing concern at Madhavaram, Chennai, lodged a typed complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam Police Station, Puducherry. He stated that in June 2026 he was informed by the Q Branch, Ramanathapuram District, that a consignment of 96,000 Pregabalin 150 mg capsules bearing his company's name had been seized; that on verification he found the manufacturing particulars on the packing to be those of M/s. Digital Vision, Himachal Pradesh; and that the said manufacturer denied having manufactured the said capsules.
The de facto complainant further stated that, on his own enquiry, he traced the source of the capsules to M/s. Medinok Healthcare Private Limited, Kurumbapet, Puducherry, and that in order to gather evidence he placed a test order for the said capsules through one broker Seeni Mohammed (A4), paying ₹2,00,000/- on 06.07.2026 and ₹3,40,000/- on 13.07.2026, in all ₹5,40,000/-, into a nominated bank account, and that delivery was to be effected through Mettur Transport on 13.07.2026, the very channel through which the earlier consignment intercepted at Mandapam had moved.
On the said complaint, Crime No.96 of 2026 came to be registered at Mettupalayam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 276, 318(4), 123 and 336(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS") and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The petitioner, being the Managing Director of M/s. Medinok Healthcare Private Limited, appeared at Mettupalayam Police Station pursuant to a notice issued to him under Section 35(1)(a) BNSS, was interrogated in the presence of official witnesses and was arrested at 11:45 hours. He was remanded to judicial custody on 14.07.2026.
Pursuant to his alleged confession, 60 strips containing 600 Pregabalin IP 150 mg capsules bearing the manufacturing particulars of M/s. Digital Vision and the marketing particulars of M/s. APA Drugs and Formulations, a sum of ₹1,12,000/- and a Maruti Suzuki Eeco van bearing Registration No. PY-05-W-8188 were seized from the premises of M/s. Medinok Healthcare Private Limited; and a further 1,510 strips of Pregabalin 150 mg capsules were recovered from a godown at R.S.No.422/15, Poothurai Village, Tamil Nadu, identified by the petitioner.
By order of the office of the Director General of Police, Puducherry dated 16.07.2026, the case was transferred to the CBCID Police Station, and on 20.07.2026 it came to be re-registered as Crime No.06 of 2026 for the same offences.
Police custody of the petitioner was sought and granted, and he was taken into police custody on 03.08.2026. He was interrogated, a further confession was recorded, and one laptop, one desktop computer and certain documents were seized. He was produced back before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 04.08.2026 and lodged in Central Prison, Kalapet.
According to the status report, the petitioner disclosed that A2 Vallimuthu and A3 Jaiganesh approached him in May 2026 with a demand for about 2,98,000 Pregabalin 150 mg capsules; that he arranged the raw material and the printed foil carrying the particulars of M/s. Digital Vision; that about 3,00,000 capsules bearing Batch No. GCFO428, Mfg. July 2026 and Exp. June 2028 were prepared; and that A5 Vignesh @ Vignesh Shankar, the Production Manager, executed the manufacture on his instructions. A2 to A5 are stated to be absconding. The anticipatory bail petition of A5 was dismissed on 10.08.2026 and that of A3 on 14.08.2026.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
M/s. Medinok Healthcare Private Limited is a lawfully licensed pharmaceutical manufacturing establishment holding a licence in Form 25 bearing Lic. No.18 13 4288 and a licence in Form 28 bearing Lic. No.18 22 4289, both dated 20.04.2018 and retained up to 19.04.2028 by the Licensing Authority, Department of Drugs Control, Government of Puducherry, and that Pregabalin Capsules IP 150 mg stands endorsed on the said licence by endorsement dated 24.12.2021. The unit is not a clandestine operation.
The prosecution has invoked Section 276 BNS alleging adulteration of drugs, but there is neither a Government Analyst's report, nor a Drugs Testing Laboratory report, nor any expert opinion to show that the seized capsules are adulterated or are otherwise not of standard quality.
Section 123 BNS is wholly premature; there is not even an allegation that any human being consumed the capsules or suffered any hurt.
Section 318(4) BNS requires dishonest inducement and delivery of property; the only "delivery" alleged is to the de facto complainant himself, who admittedly acted as a decoy and now seeks restitution of ₹5,40,000/-.
Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act are invoked without any seizure of plates, blocks, dies, moulds or printing devices from the petitioner.
The complaint has been lodged by a business rival, and the whole exercise is a private trap designed to eliminate competition.
The petitioner has been implicated essentially because he is a Director; mere designation as Director, absent specific material showing his active role, cannot fasten criminal liability. Reliance was placed on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 and Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668.
The case is documentary and scientific in character; every relevant record, product, device and digital device is already in the custody of the investigating agency; and the petitioner's further detention serves no investigative purpose. Reliance was placed on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 and Manoj Kumar Mutta v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 215.
The petitioner is a permanent resident of Puducherry, is aged 50, has no antecedents, is the sole bread-winner of his family, and is prepared to abide by any condition this Court may impose.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), adopting the status report dated 31.08.2026, opposed the petition on the following grounds:
The petitioner is not a mere possessor. He procured the raw material, received the printed foil bearing the particulars of another manufacturer, and caused the capsules to be manufactured and packed. His role goes to the very creation of the counterfeit product.
Notwithstanding that he had access to a licensed manufacturing facility, the petitioner chose to manufacture medicines under the name and particulars of another manufacturer, which raises a grave doubt as to the composition, strength, quality and safety of the product. The expert/laboratory analysis is awaited and the composition can be conclusively determined only thereafter.
The modus operandi, the conspiracy, the financial transactions, the procurement of raw materials, the storage, transportation and distribution network involving A1 to A5 are yet to be fully established.
A2 to A5 are absconding. Release of A1 at this stage would enable the accused to communicate with one another, coordinate their versions and interfere with the investigation.
The consignments were despatched in the fictitious names of "Dr. Muthu" and "Dr. Mohamed", indicating a deliberate concealment of the identity of the actual recipients.
Electronic devices and manufacturing records having been seized and being under examination, the petitioner's release creates a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence and influencing material witnesses.
The only question is whether, on the material now available, the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail, and if so, on what terms.
It is necessary at the threshold to identify, what the petitioner stands accused of, because the "gravity of the offence" is not a matter of adjectives but of the sentence the statute prescribes. The offences invoked carry the following punishments: Provision Description Maximum punishment Section 276 BNS Adulteration of drugs 1 year, or fine of ₹5,000, or both Section 123 BNS Causing hurt by means of 10 years and fine poison etc. with intent to commit an offence Section 318(4) BNS Cheating and dishonestly 7 years and fine inducing delivery of property Section 336(2) BNS Forgery 2 years, or fine, or both Section 3(5) BNS Common intention (not a — substantive offence) Section 63, Copyright Knowing infringement of Not less than 6 months, Act copyright up to 3 years, with fine of
₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000
Section 65, Copyright Possession of plates for 2 years and fine Act making infringing copies
In M/s. Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC Online SC 668, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, construing Part II of the First Schedule to the Code, that an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, being punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, is cognizable and non-bailable. The invocation of that provision by the police is therefore not open to challenge on the ground of cognizability. But that same reasoning fixes the outer limit of the sentence at three years.
Section 123 BNS is the only provision on the charge-sheet carrying a punishment beyond seven years. That section punishes one who "administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing" with the requisite intent or knowledge. On the material placed before this Court, there is not a whisper that any capsule from the seized stock was administered to, or taken by, any person; nor is there any report — analytical or clinical — that the capsules are poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome. Indeed, the respondent's own status report is candid on the point: the "exact composition and conformity of the seized capsules with the intended formulation can be established only upon receipt of the pending expert/laboratory analysis report." An offence which the prosecution itself says cannot presently be established for want of the very report that would supply its foundation cannot, at the same time, be pressed into service to defeat bail.
For the same reason, Section 276 BNS — which turns upon the adulteration of a drug "in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious" — is, at this stage, an accusation resting on an assumption rather than on an analysis. That is not to say the section will fail; it is only to say that its foundation is presently absent, and that in any event the section attracts a maximum of one year.
Setting aside Section 123 BNS, therefore, the gravest offence which the material presently supports is one punishable with a maximum of seven years — Section 318(4) BNS. This is a matter of some consequence, for in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Hon'ble Supreme Court classified offences into four categories, and offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less fall in Category "A", in respect of which the Court deprecated routine arrest and routine refusal of bail. Even taking the case at its highest for the prosecution and placing it in Category "D" as an economic offence, the direction is that bail be decided on merits, having regard to the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment — and not that bail be reflexively refused.
With the settled principles for Bail jurisprudence in mind, this Court has examined the material.
The petitioner's principal defence — that he holds a valid manufacturing licence which covers Pregabalin Capsules IP 150 mg — does not carry him as far as his counsel would have it. The endorsement dated 24.12.2021 (Endorsement No. DDC/Medinok/U.IV/2021-22/ADPE/315), which the petitioner himself has produced, permits Pregabalin Capsules IP 150 mg and 300 mg under Form 28 Licence No.18 22 4289 in terms which are unambiguous: "For Export Purpose Only". A licence to manufacture for export is not a licence to manufacture for release into the domestic market. Further, and more fundamentally, no licence in the world authorises a manufacturer to affix to his product the name, address, manufacturing licence numbers and batch particulars of a different manufacturer. If established, such conduct answers the description in Section 17-B(a), (b) and (e) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, of a spurious drug — a drug manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug, or which is an imitation of another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive, or which purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.
The suggestion that the petitioner has been roped in merely by reason of his directorship is not borne out. Sunil Bharti Mittal case and Maksud Saiyed case protect a director against liability fastened by designation alone; they do not protect a director against material showing his personal act. Here the allegation is not that the petitioner was a director of a company which did something, but that he personally arranged the raw material, personally received the printed foil, personally directed the Production Manager, and personally identified the godown from which 1,510 strips were recovered. The distinction is real and it is against the petitioner.
Manoj Kumar Mutta v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 215, upon which the petitioner relies, is distinguishable on its own terms. Anticipatory bail was granted there because the appellant "was not initially named in the FIR and no raid was ever conducted at his place of business". Here the petitioner is named as A1 in the complaint and in the FIR, and the recovery was made from his own premises.
This Court therefore records that there is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. That, however, is where the enquiry begins, not where it ends. If a prima facie case were sufficient to refuse bail, no under-trial would ever be released.
The decisive circumstance is this. The respondent applied for and obtained police custody of the petitioner. He was in police custody on 03.08.2026, was interrogated, gave a further statement, and was produced back on 04.08.2026. The respondent has not stated in the status report that any further police custody is required, and no such application appears to be pending. Paragraph 10 of the status report puts it conditionally — that custodial interrogation "is required when the other accused persons are arrested and new facts are revealed." That is a contingency, not a present necessity, and this Court is not prepared to keep a man in prison against a contingency.
Simultaneously, every item of evidence which the petitioner could conceivably interfere with is already beyond his reach. The 600 capsules, the 1,510 strips, the cash of ₹1,12,000/-, the Eeco van, the laptop, the desktop computer and the manufacturing records stand seized. The scene of occurrence has been visited, a rough sketch prepared, and entries made in the e-Sakshya application. The witnesses examined so far — Irrisane, Thamizhselan, the two official witnesses to the arrest and confession, the de facto complainant Rajkumar, and the Manager of M/s. Digital Vision — have had their statements recorded. As Sanjay Chandra recognises, where the material is documentary and is already in the possession of the prosecution, an apprehension of tampering is substantially attenuated.
It also bears noting that the confession attributed to the petitioner, having been made to a police officer, is inadmissible under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, save to the extent of information distinctly relating to a fact thereby discovered. The prosecution's case at trial must therefore rest on the recoveries, the seized records, the digital evidence and the analytical report — none of which is within the petitioner's reach.
Three specific apprehensions were urged. Each must be weighed rather than merely recited.
That the petitioner may communicate with the absconding accused. The absconding of A2 to A5 is not the petitioner's act, and the petitioner cannot be detained as a hostage to their arrest. Nearly seven weeks have passed since the petitioner's arrest. The apprehension can, in any event, be met by a condition restraining contact.
That the analytical report is awaited. If, on receipt of the report, materially graver offences are disclosed — in particular under Section 27(a) or 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, where Section 36AC imposes stringent conditions on bail — the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation, and such an application will be considered on its own merits.
That the investigation is incomplete. Investigation is very nearly always incomplete when a bail application is heard. On the material presently on record, the highest offence made out is punishable with seven years, and the statutory period for the filing of the final report under Section 187(3) BNSS is running. Bail cannot be refused for this reason.
Without in any manner pre-judging the trial, three features of the record are relevant to the bail consideration;
The quantities urged and the quantities recovered do not coincide. The learned Principal Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that "6 lakhs counterfeit Pregabalin-150 mg capsules valued at about ₹2 crores" had been manufactured. The status report itself speaks of a disclosure of about 3,00,000 capsules. The actual recovery, however, is 600 capsules from the Medinok premises and 1,510 strips from the Poothurai godown. The consignment of 96,000 capsules intercepted at Mandapam is the subject matter of a separate case of the Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, and no material has been placed before this Court linking that seizure analytically to the petitioner's unit. A figure arrived at from an inadmissible confession, unsupported by seizure, cannot bear the weight that has been placed upon it.
The genesis of the case is a private "sting" mounted by a commercial rival, who paid ₹5,40,000/- as a decoy purchase and who has, in the same breath, asked the investigating agency to recover that sum for him. The complainant's conduct is a matter for the trial court; but a court considering bail may legitimately note that the transaction relied upon as the act of "cheating" under Section 318(4) BNS was one in which the alleged victim was a willing and informed participant, and that the element of deception at the inception of that particular transaction is, to say the least, contestable.
Although Section 17-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 appears squarely attracted, no offence under that Act has been registered. This Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the effect of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674 — where it was held that police officers are not empowered to register a first information report or investigate cognizable offences falling under Chapter IV of that Act, cognizance of which is taken only on a complaint by an Inspector under Section 32, while the police retain their power to investigate offences under the general penal law arising on the same facts — since the question does not directly arise. It is, however, appropriate to observe that the Drugs Control Department of the Government of Puducherry, which has itself inspected the unit, is not disabled by anything in this order from taking such action as the law permits.
Weighing the gravity of the accusation — which this Court does not minimise — against the fact that custodial interrogation stands concluded, that the evidence stands seized, that the maximum sentence presently in prospect is seven years, and that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.07.2026, this Court is of the considered view that continued detention would cease to serve any investigative purpose and would begin to operate as punishment before trial, which the law does not permit. The competing public interest can be adequately protected by imposing stringent conditions.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
The petitioner/A1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.06 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, on his executing a bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Puducherry, and subject to the following conditions:
The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond, and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or any other proof of identity to ensure their identity.
The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 a.m. for a period of two weeks from the date of his release, and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer, until further orders.
The petitioner shall not leave the Union Territory of Puducherry or the State of Tamil Nadu without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court, and shall furnish his residential address and contact number to the Investigating Officer and intimate any change forthwith.
The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, and shall not tamper with any evidence in any manner.
The petitioner shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, with the absconding accused A2 Vallimuthu, A3 Jaiganesh, A4 Seeni Mohammed and A5 Vignesh @ Vignesh Shankar, otherwise than through the Investigating Officer.
The petitioner shall not interfere with, remove or deal with any article, record, register, machinery or document seized in the case, or lying in the sealed portion of the premises of M/s. Medinok Healthcare Private Limited, and shall extend full co-operation to the Investigating Officer and to the officers of the Drugs Control Department, Government of Puducherry.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature, and shall not cause or permit the manufacture, packing or labelling of any drug otherwise than strictly in accordance with the licences held by M/s. Medinok Healthcare Private Limited and the endorsements made thereon.
On breach of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action in accordance with law, and the respondent shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner absconding, a fresh First Information Report can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of this bail petition, are prima facie in nature, and shall not influence the Investigating Officer in the further investigation, or the trial court at any stage of the trial.