THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. ROBIN @ HIMANSHU VIJAYKUMAR TANEJA 2026:BHC-NAG:4723:

DATE: 24.03.2026

COURT: High Court of Bombay

BENCH: Justice MM Nerlikar

FACTS:

The case arises out of Crime No.57/2024 registered at Kalmeshwar Police Station, Nagpur, involving offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275, 276, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations pertain to a conspiracy to supply spurious Ciprofloxacin 500 mg tablets (Recip-500) to government hospitals. Accused Vijay Choudhary procured the drugs and supplied them to Mihir Trivedi, who in turn supplied them to Hemant Muley, the successful bidder in a State Government tender floated on 12.11.2021 for procurement of medicines through his firm M/s. Jaya Enterprises. Hemant Muley supplied the drugs to the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Nagpur, from where they were distributed to various rural hospitals. Samples tested at Bombay revealed that the tablets did not contain Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride, rendering them spurious under Section 17-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The non-applicant Robin was alleged to have acted as the key middleman who procured the spurious drugs from Amit Dhiman, a manufacturer of animal feed supplements with no valid licence to produce medicines for human consumption. Robin allegedly placed orders with Amit Dhiman on instructions from Vijay Choudhary and supplied the drugs further in the chain. Bank transactions worth approximately ₹2.85 crores were traced between Vijay/Shailendra Choudhary and Robin, his wife Priya, and his mother Poonam. No corresponding bank transactions existed between Robin and Amit Dhiman; payments were claimed to have been made in cash. Fake bills of Iscon Life Science were seized from Robin’s house, and spurious drugs were allegedly supplied from his establishment to hospitals in Nanded and Thane. Robin has ten criminal cases registered against him (nine in Maharashtra and one in Uttarakhand). The State filed an application under Section 483(2) BNSS for cancellation of regular bail granted to Robin by the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur on 29.05.2025 in Criminal Bail Application No.811/2025.

ISSUES:

The primary issues were whether the trial court had exercised its discretion improperly in granting bail to Robin despite the seriousness of the offence involving supply of spurious drugs to government hospitals, the existence of large unexplained financial transactions running into crores of rupees between Robin and his family members on one side and the co-accused on the other, the complete absence of any bank transactions between Robin and the unlicensed manufacturer Amit Dhiman, and Robin’s involvement in a larger conspiracy with ten pending criminal cases against him.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) allowed the State’s application and cancelled the regular bail granted to the non-applicant Robin by the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur on 29.05.2025. The Court quashed and set aside the bail order and directed that Robin be taken into custody forthwith in connection with Crime No.57/2024.

The Court held that the most crucial factor pointing to Robin’s knowledge and active involvement was the pattern of financial transactions. While ₹2.85 crores had been transferred through banking channels from Vijay and Shailendra Choudhary to Robin and his immediate family members (wife Priya and mother Poonam), there was not a single bank transaction between Robin and Amit Dhiman, the alleged manufacturer of the spurious drugs. The explanation offered by Robin’s counsel that Amit Dhiman insisted on cash payments was found to be unacceptable and unbelievable. The Court observed that if Robin was genuinely acting as a middleman without any knowledge of the spurious nature of the drugs, he would have followed the same transparent banking route with Amit Dhiman. The absence of such transactions, coupled with the seizure of fake bills from Robin’s house and supplies made from his establishment to other districts, clearly indicated that Robin had full knowledge that Amit Dhiman was manufacturing spurious drugs without any licence and had deliberately procured them at low cost to earn higher profits in the conspiracy.

The Bench further held that the offence involved a serious racket of supplying spurious drugs to government hospitals, endangering public health on a large scale. The forged labels on the medicine boxes showed clear intention to pass off spurious drugs as genuine, attracting the grave offence of forgery under Section 467 IPC, which carries punishment of life imprisonment or up to ten years. Considering the magnitude of the conspiracy, the chain of supply directly reaching government hospitals, the ten pending criminal cases against Robin, and the fact that the trial court had granted bail merely on the ground that Robin was not the manufacturer and that the trial would take time, the High Court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion in an improper and arbitrary manner. The order granting bail was therefore vitiated and liable to be cancelled. The Court emphasised that in cases involving spurious drugs, which pose a hidden danger to public health and future generations, bail cannot be granted mechanically when the material on record prima facie shows deep involvement and knowledge of the accused.

ANALYSIS:

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has delivered a strong judgment underscoring the gravity of offences involving the supply of spurious drugs to government hospitals. The Court cancelled the regular bail granted to Robin, the key middleman in the conspiracy, highlighting how large-scale financial transactions and suspicious banking patterns can establish knowledge and active participation even in the absence of direct manufacturing. The judgment exposes a well-organised racket where spurious Ciprofloxacin tablets were procured from an unlicensed manufacturer of animal feed supplements and supplied through multiple layers to public hospitals. By focusing on the glaring discrepancy of ₹2.85 crores transferred transparently between co-accused and Robin’s family members, but zero bank transactions with the actual manufacturer, the Court effectively pierced through the defence of “cash payments,” treating it as highly implausible and indicative of guilty knowledge.

This decision reinforces that in cases involving spurious drugs, which pose a serious threat to public health and can cause long-term harm including treatment failure, organ damage, and generational health risks, courts must exercise greater caution while granting bail. The High Court rightly found fault with the trial court’s order, which had granted bail primarily on the ground that Robin was not the manufacturer and that the trial would take time. The Bench emphasised that the offence under Section 467 IPC (forgery) carries punishment of life imprisonment, and the material on record including fake bills, multiple supplies from Robin’s establishment, and his involvement in ten criminal cases, prima facie demonstrated deep involvement in the conspiracy. The ruling sends a clear message that bail cannot be granted mechanically in serious economic offences affecting public health, especially when the accused fails to explain incriminating financial transactions and the chain of supply directly endangers patients in government hospitals.