Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh high court on Monday declined bail to the owner of pharmaceutical company M/s Glenmars Healthcare in the Baddi area of Solan district, from where a huge quantity of substandard drugs was recovered.
Dismissing firm owner Avindra Shukla’s bail petition, Justice Virender Singh pointed out: “A huge quantity of drugs, i.e., Amoxus-500 capsules (69 boxes), Doxtil-200 tablets (79 boxes), MEF 200 tablets (100 boxes), Zathron-500 tablets (26 boxes), Roxim-500 capsules (66 boxes), and Ampicillin-500 capsules (19 boxes) were found on the said premises. The recovery of a huge quantity of substandard/spurious drugs speaks voluminously about the seriousness of the offence, and in case the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, it will give a wrong signal to society that after committing such an offence, the applicant is still moving freely in society.”
The court held that even otherwise, the applicant’s release on bail would also encourage other drug manufacturers to indulge in the preparation or marketing of substandard or spurious drugs to earn easy money.
“Moreover, the effect of the spurious drugs on the persons who used to consume the same, in hope and faith, is also one of the major factors which cannot be ignored by this court at this stage,” underlined the court.
Shukla was arrested on Oct 6, 2023, on the basis of an FIR registered under various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, by the drugs inspector Baddi. Thereafter, he was lodged in sub-jail, Nalagarh, in Solan district.
The drugs inspector highlighted in his report that despite the expiry of the licence on Jan 27, 2023, M/s Glenmars Healthcare was dealing with allopathic drugs, and as per the laboratory’s report, the recovered drugs were found to be of substandard or spurious quality and not stated to be manufactured as mentioned on the drugs which were found on the premises.
On this, the court said: “This fact is sufficient to point out the seriousness of the offence.”
The court mentioned: “The percentage of the actual contents, as per the analysis report, was 00.00% in five drugs, mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 5, whereas, in the drug mentioned at Sr. No. 6, the same was found to be 83.71%.”
The state govt counsel also informed the court that a similar case was also filed against the manufacturer in the year 2020, and this case was also pending in the court of the special judge, Nalagarh.
