Patna High Court
Md. kashif khanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner, being merely an employee without knowledge of the drug licence details, is not liable and is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Kashif Khan, a helper at Jeeva Hospital, was implicated in an FIR alleging that he supplied misleading information about a drug licence and concealed that the licence belonged to Abhinav Kumar, violating sections 18(C), 18(a), 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that he is not the owner of the hospital, had no knowledge of the seized medicines, and maintains a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the alleged offence. The Court observed that the petitioner, being merely an employee, could not be expected to possess the requisite knowledge that the owner would, and therefore the owner should be the proper accused. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions, including regular court appearances and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the alleged offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
- Whether the petitioner, as an employee with no ownership or managerial control, can be held liable for the alleged false information and suppression of facts.
- Whether the owner of Jeeva Hospital should be the proper accused in place of the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 482(2)
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — s. 18(a), 18(C), 27(b)(ii), 28
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- false information
- employee liability
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27414 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Rohtas
======================================================
Md. kashif khan son of Md. Mastakim Khan, R/O Mohalla-Kila Thana
Chowk, PS- Sasaram, District-Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nawaz Shareef, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Nawaz Shareef, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Official Case No. 01 of 2025 for the offence
punishable under sections 18(C), 18(a), 27(b)(ii) 28 of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 lodged on 28.12.2024 by the
informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
the petitioner is that while the investigation was carried out , he
gave the misleading information with respect to drug license
which is valid up to 09.04.2026 and further the fact was
suppressed that the above license belongs to one Abhinav
Kumar. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27414 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
2/4
petitioner is not the owner of the Jeeva Hospital and Emergency
Care, wherefrom the seizure of medicines are said to have been
made by the drug inspector. As per the official complaint, the
allegation against the petitioner is that the drug inspector was
provided with wrong information in respect of the drugs license
which is said to have been issued in favour of the owner of the
hospital on the basis of which, the drugs were kept in the said
hospital. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was
working as a helper in the said hospital and had no knowledge
with regard to the drugs kept in the said hospital. It is further
submitted that the owner of the Jeeva Hospital and Emergency
Care has not been made accused in this case and the petitioner,
who has no connection with the seized articles or with the
hospital administration for, ulterior reasons have been
implicated in this case by the Drug Inspector. The petitioner is a
man of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory
bail.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner was an
employee of Jeeva Hospital and the allegations for which the
petitioner has been roped in, the same could not have been made
against this petitioner rather such allegations could have well
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27414 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
3/4
been fastened against the owner of the Jeeva Hospital who
would be in a better position to apprise the authority with regard
to the seized medicines and as also the authorities under which
those medicines were kept in the said hospital and the petitioner
holds the clean antecedent.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with aforesaid PS
Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear
on each and every date before the Trial
Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason
will entail cancellation of his/their bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27414 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
4/4
witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his/their bail
bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.