Anticipatory bail granted to drug manufacturer on ground of parity and unexplained delay in filing complaint.

The applicant, proprietor of M/s DSR Life Care, sought anticipatory bail regarding a complaint (Crime No. 454/2025) involving the manufacture of sub-standard drugs

On 28.10.2022, a Drug Inspector seized "Mil Cough Syrup" from a medical store; subsequent laboratory analysis revealed that the active ingredient, Guaiphenesin, was below prescribed standards

The supply chain investigation moved from the retailer to wholesale and marketing firms, eventually implicating the applicant’s manufacturing unit in Himachal Pradesh

The applicant contended that the firm is a licensed manufacturer, that the product passed through multiple intermediaries, and that there was an unexplained delay of over two and a half years in filing the complaint

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity and the specific circumstances of the investigation

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) concerning the grant of anticipatory bail

Principle of judicial parity, wherein similarly situated co-accused persons who have already been granted relief by the same Court (in MCRCA Nos. 813/2025, 1084/2025, and 1230/2025) should be treated equally

Regulatory framework of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, specifically Sections 17(b), 18, 27, and 28, alongside the procedural implications of inordinate delays in filing criminal complaints

The Court's reasoning focused on the application of parity and the practical gaps in the prosecution's case. It noted that several co-accused—including the marketing firm's representatives—had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in earlier applications

The applicant successfully argued that the two-and-a-half-year delay from the date of inspection to the filing of the complaint undermined the necessity of custodial interrogation

The Court observed that the applicant was a licensed manufacturer who had provided necessary documentation (Forms 25 and 28) and that the alleged sub-standard quality could not be definitively linked solely to the manufacturer without considering potential mishandling by intermediaries who failed to provide complete sales records

Given these factors and the lack of criminal antecedents, the Court found no justification for denying bail

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond with one local surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with evidence, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar future offences

The applicant was also required to submit verified identification documents (Aadhar card) to the trial court