SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LIMITED, vs The State Rep. by its Station House Officer,
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
Crl.O.P.No.1869 of 2026
Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
Male, aged about 52 years,
Executive – Corporate Affairs,
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited,
th
No.8C, 8 Floor, Hansalya Building,
15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110001. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State, rep. by its SHO,
CBCID Police Station,
Police Headquarters,
Saram, Puducherry – 605 013.
Now transferred to
2. The Joint Director
Central Bureau of Investigation (South Zone)
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3. A.K.Rana … Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 (3) of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to cancel the bail granted by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Puducherry to the third respondent/accused in Crl.M.P.No.2292
of 2025 in Cr.No.27 of 2025 on 02.12.2025 which has since been transferred to
the Central Bureau of Investigation (South Zone) and renumbered as R.C.No.
(number not yet known).
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents : M/s.G.Vrinda,
for Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor (for R2)
Crl.O.P.No.1878 of 2026
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited,
Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
Executive – Cooperate Affairs,
th
No.8-C, 8 Floor, Hansalya Building,
15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110001. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State, rep. by its SHO,
CBCID Police Station,
Police Headquarters,
Saram, Puducherry – 605013.
Now transferred to
2. The Joint Director
Central Bureau of Investigation (South Zone)
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3. Vivek @ Vivek Venkatesan
4. Raja @ Valliappan … Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 (3) of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the
Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry to the third and fourth
respondents/accused in Crl.M.P.No.2290 of 2025 in Cr.No.27 of 2025 on
02.12.2025 which has since been transferred to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (South Zone) and renumbered as R.C.No.(number not yet known).
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents : M/s.G.Vrinda
for Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor (for R2)
Mr.S.Thirumugam (for R3)
Mr.V.Ragavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Senthil (for R4)
COMMON 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.
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
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.
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
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
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
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.1878 of 2026 and would contend that the Trial Court
granted bail only after an elaborate consideration of the factual as well as legal
aspects of the matter. According to him, there is no perversity in the order
passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge warranting interference by this
Court. It is further submitted that cancellation of bail is a serious relief and the
liberty once granted to an accused cannot be lightly interfered with in the
absence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondents in
Crl.O.P.No.1878 of 2026 would submit that the FIR in Crime No.27 of 2025 has
been stayed by this Court in the connected quash proceedings. It is his further
contention that the petitioner has suppressed the factum of such stay and that the
order of stay continues to remain in force. The learned Senior Counsel would
further contend that the alleged supervening circumstances cannot be pressed
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
into service in the present proceedings, as the petitioner has sought cancellation
of bail primarily on the ground that the order granting bail is perverse.
8. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that, even assuming
that an FIR has subsequently been registered against one of the accused under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, the same cannot constitute a ground for
cancellation of the bail already granted, as the registration of such FIR is
subsequent to the grant of bail. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior
Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra
K. Amin vs. State of Gujarat, reported in MANU/SC/7525/2008 , Dolat Ram vs.
State of Haryana , reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , and X vs. State of Telangana ,
reported in (2018) 16 SCC 511 . Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present
Criminal Original Petitions.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
10. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is necessary to examine
the settled legal principles governing cancellation of bail. Though the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
appearing for the respondents/accused have relied upon different lines of
judgements, the entire jurisprudence ultimately rests upon the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (cited
supra). The ratio laid down therein is that an order cancelling bail can be passed
only when there exist cogent and overwhelming circumstances warranting such
cancellation. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract the observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (cited
supra), which read as follows:-
“33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited
to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court
certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail
of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances.
Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be
cancelled:
33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant
material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while
ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential
position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or
the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of
position and power over the victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused
is completely ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting
bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first
place given the very serious nature of the charges against the
accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be
justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical,
capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.”
11. The judgment in Jagjeet Singh (cited supra) reiterates the importance
of affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim. Likewise, in Vipin Kumar
Dhir (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to Dolat Ram
(cited supra), has held that cogent and overwhelming reasons are indispensable
for cancellation of bail. It has further held that the supervening circumstances
which may develop post the grant of bail, and or non-conducive to fair trial
making it necessary to cancel the bail. From the above judgment, it can be
inferred that the cancellation of bail and an appeal against an order granting bail
are governed by two different criteria.
12. In this regard, it is relevant to extract paragraph 15 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in X v. State of Telangana , reported in (2018) 16
SCC 511 , which reads as follows:-
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
“
15. These principles have been reiterated by another two-
Judge Bench decision in CBI v. Subramani
Gopalakrishnan [CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC
296 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 618] and more recently in Dataram
Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC
22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675 : (2018) 2 Scale 285] : (Subramani
case [CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC 296 : (2011)
2 SCC (Cri) 618] , SCC pp. 303-04, para 23)
“23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference
between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal
against the order granting bail. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally
speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are,
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the
due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to
the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative
materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the
materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused
absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of
bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain
his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the
trial.”
13. After referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , has
held that there is a difference between the yardsticks for cancellation of bail and
appeal against the order of granting bail . Therefore, it is necessary to examine
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
the true nature of the present proceedings. Though the petitioner has sought
cancellation of bail, the real purport of the present petitions, as could be
gathered from the pleadings, is to challenge the order granting bail passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge. Therefore, this Court is required to examine
the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge.
14. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, it is seen that bail was granted as the offence, except the offence under
Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the remaining offences does not
warrant custodial interrogation. The learned Principal Sessions Judge has also
found that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to the accused and that,
though the accused had been remanded to judicial custody on 18.11.2025,
subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh
Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500. He also rest his
order granting bail as no application seeking police custody had been filed
before the jurisdictional Court. It is only on the aforesaid grounds the learned
Principal Sessions Judge granted bail and anticipatory bail to the accused.
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
15. In paragraph No.9 of the order, the learned Principal Sessions Judge
has referred to the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah (cited supra) and has recorded
a categorical finding that, except the signature of the arrestee in the arrest
memo, no material had been produced before the Court to establish that the
grounds of arrest had been furnished to the accused. As repeatedly held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the jurisprudence relating to the furnishing of grounds
of arrest mandates that the accused must be apprised of all relevant particulars
so as to effectively defend himself both at the stage of remand and in the
proceedings seeking bail. In the present case, the learned Principal Sessions
Judge has rendered a factual finding that there was a clear violation in
furnishing the grounds of arrest, which finding discloses violation of the
constitutional rights guaranteed to the accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
16. Therefore, once there is a violation of the constitutional safeguards,
the accused become entitled to be enlarged on bail. Apart from the above, as
rightly observed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, even as on date, no
submission has been made on behalf of the CBI regarding the necessity for
custodial interrogation of the accused. In fact, the CBI has not placed any
additional material before this Court in support of the petitioner's request for
cancellation of bail. The learned Principal Sessions Judge has also taken into
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
consideration the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the
accused and recorded that except Section 318(4) of BNS, other Section does not
require custodial interrogation. Only after considering all these aspects, the
learned Principal Sessions Judge granted bail. As already observed, the violation
of the constitutional rights was the primordial consideration of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge for granting bail to the accused.
17. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
referred to certain alleged supervening circumstances, qua the non compliance
of the condition from appearing before the concerned Court, and the tampering
with the investigation by bribing the Investigation Officer, the same cannot be
agitated in the instant petitions, as the present petitions have been filed to
examine the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge. As already observed, this Court could not find any
infirmity of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in granting bail/anticipatory
bail.
18. This Court fully conscious to the position that the importance attached
to the liberty of an accused must equally be balanced with the interest of society
and the rights of the general public who are alleged to have been affected by the
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
acts of the accused. At the same time, it is a well-settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that bail is the rule and
jail is the exception.
19. In the case in hand, a careful reading of the order passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge would show that all the relevant materials have
been duly considered before granting bail and the anticipatory bail to the
accused. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied
upon several judgments, this Court is unable to find, from the order of the
learned Principal Judge, any deviation from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The so-called supervening circumstances relied upon by the
petitioner have no bearing on the issues arising in the present proceedings.
However, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the competent Court on
the basis of any subsequent supervening circumstances that may have arisen
after the filing of the present petitions.
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
20. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, this Court finds
absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, these
Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.
20.07.2026
kv
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To:
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry
2. The Joint Director
Central Bureau of Investigation (South Zone)
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3. The SHO,
CBCID Police Station,
Police Headquarters,
Saram, Puducherry – 605 013.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )
2026:MHC:3009
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
C.KUMARAPPAN , J.
kv
Crl.O.P.Nos.1869 and 1878 of 2026
20.07.2026
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2026 06:00:22 pm )