Khemram Bani vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Khemram Bani, a 63-year-old proprietor of Saraswati Medical Store, is seeking regular bail. He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2025, registered by the Deputy Director, Food and Drugs and Cosmetic Administration, Raipur. The prosecution alleges that during a joint inspection of Nagpur Golden Transport Gogoan, a GST bill in the name of Saraswati Medical Store and a GR from Nagpur Golden Transport Indore were inspected. Medicines sent by Maa Bijasan Medicos, Indore, were found to be sub-standard and were seized. Samples confirmed the sub-standard quality. The applicant claims he is innocent, has been running the store for over 30 years, and never directly ordered from Maa Bijasan Medicos, but rather from Prakash Agencies, a wholesaler. He asserts no direct nexus with the alleged supplier and suggests false implication.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, granting regular bail to the applicant, Khemram Bani. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, the fact that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed, and that the applicant had been in judicial custody since April 13, 2025. It was also noted that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take considerable time. The Court reasoned that these factors warranted extending the benefit of bail. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to several conditions including undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, remaining present on each date fixed for trial, and facing proceedings for misuse of liberty or absence as per the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Khemram Bani, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of supplying sub-standard medicines under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and The Drugs Rules, 1945? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. He has been running a medical store for over 30 years with a valid drug license. He is 63 years old and suffers from ailments. He never directly ordered from Maa Bijasan Medicos, Indore, but from Prakash Agencies, a wholesaler. There is no material to establish a direct nexus or transaction with Maa Bijasan Medicos, and thus he cannot be held liable for sub-standard medicines. The sender's address being frivolous raises doubt about the prosecution case and suggests possible false implication by competitors. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the bail application, noting that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed.