CRM-M/32824/2026 of JATIN KHANNA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 20 July 2026

1), registered 18(c), 27(b)( Drugs and Co

was dismisse 4-2026

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-32824

32824-2 a

versus

yana

ision: sion: ision: sion: July 20 July 20 July 20 July 20, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 oading: oading: oading: oading: July July July July 21

21, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM Mr. Tanvi Dhull, Advocate for t Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Se Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate f ***** ***** ***** *****

OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present 2nd petition has been agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (h twhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C ner, in case bearing DDR No.03 d for commission of offences

(ii) and 17B(e), 27(a) and 27(c) osmetics Act, 1940, at Police Sta The first bail plea for grant of a ed as withdrawn, with liberty to f

B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT RH RH RH RH

....Petitioner

....Respondent MEET GOEL MEET GOEL MEET GOEL MEET GOEL the petitioner. enior DAG Haryana. for the complainant. n filed under Section 482 of hereinafter to be referred as ‘the C.) for grant of anticipatory bail 3 dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P- punishable under Sections 28, read with Section 36 AB of the ation Sector 40, Gurugram. anticipatory bail to the petitioner file afresh, on the same cause of r t f e l - , e r f MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-32824

32824-2026

action, after giving more particulars/ material, vide order dated 23.04.2026 passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-22174 22174 22174 22174-2026

2026.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of supplying spurious drug headon somatropin for injection IP.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has submitted that prime allegations are leveled against the main accused from whose premises alleged recovery has been effected. It has been stated that no role has been attributed to the petitioner and he has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement, which is not admissible in law. Learned counsel has submitted that no independent material has been brought on record to show complicity of the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has further been urged that evidence available with the prosecution is documentary in nature, which is already in possession of the investigating agency and, thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case. Learned counsel has submitted that the samples were initially sent to the Government laboratories for analysis; however, the same were returned on account of the absence of the requisite facilities or scientist(s). Thereafter, the samples were sent to M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals (the complainant in the present case) for examination. It has been contended that, since the analysis was carried out by an interested party having a direct stake in the outcome of the proceedings, the report furnished by the complainant company cannot be treated as reliable for forming basis for alleging that the drugs in question are spurious. This MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-32824

32824-2026

action of the prosecution is contrary to the settled principles of fair investigation.

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 15.06.2025, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It has been stated as under in para-5 of the aforesaid reply: “5. That as far as the role of petitioner in the above stated offence is concerned, it was the petitioner i.e. Jatin Khanna who sold the spurious drug in question. The recovered spurious drugs from accused no. 1 i.e. Hari Om was supplied by petitioner. It is submitted that instant complaint case came into being on dated 26-02-2025. A written complaint was received by respondent on 26-02-2025 from Mr. Vishwa Vijay Singh - Sr. Manager, Anti-Counterfeit Division (Employee ID-392806), M/S Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Delhi office situated at 8-C, 8th Floor, Hansalya Building, 15-Barakhmba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001, India regarding the sale of spurious product i.e. Head On i.e. Somatropin for Injection IP (Recombinant Human Growth Hormone for Injecilen) having a shelf life of 35 months. Complaint (with courier tracking details, whatsapp chat of both mobiles of seller 09354069800 and 08979278757 with 09956417116 and 08882165500 of Mr. Vishwa Vijay Singh and Mr. Ishank Khair respectively) was taken and entry was done at about 1:00 PM.”

4.1. It is, thus, argued that given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-32824

32824-2026

interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant, while raising submissions in tandem with the affidavit dated 29.06.2026, has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence and, hence, he ought not be extended the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, prima facie, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is borne out from the prosecution case that the petitioner was found supplying spurious Headon Somatropin for Injection IP (Recombinant Human Growth Hormone for Injection) bearing Batch No.202303YK01-40 (Mfd. 20240323, Exp. 2027.02) and batch No.202303YK01-30 Injections Mfd. 20220523 exp. 2025.0. The allegations, prima facie, pertain to the procurement and supply of spurious drugs, which are of a grave and serious nature and have the potential to endanger human life. The material collected during the investigation, prima facie, discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. The allegations are not merely technical in nature but concern the circulation of spurious MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-32824

32824-2026

pharmaceutical products, the use of which may seriously jeopardize the health and life of unsuspecting patients.

6.1. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. v. v. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third- degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-32824

32824-2026

8. In view of the seriousness and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused.

9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is being sought for effective investigation and to unearth the prosecution case. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 20 July 20 July 20 July 20, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment