Allahabad High Court

ATAHAR HASAN SAIYED @ SAIYED ATAHAR HASAN MUNVARALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The Court prima facie finds the case fit for anticipatory bail and grants it subject to stringent conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Atahar Hasan Saiyed, sought anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 482 in a case alleging violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for misbranding of a tablet called 'Safetrin-20'. The prosecution alleged that the tablet contained 9.9 mg of Isotretinoin per tablet, exceeding the standard, while two other drugs were found compliant. The applicant argued that the 0.1 mg excess was within laboratory tolerance, presented an independent lab report confirming compliance, and claimed the prosecution was malicious with no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s technical arguments. The Court, after considering the nature of the offence, the marginal variance, and the lack of criminal history, held that the case was prima facie suitable for anticipatory bail and granted it with strict conditions.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged misbranding under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Whether a marginal testing variance of 0.1 mg and an independent laboratory report affect the prima facie case for bail.
Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
What conditions may be imposed on anticipatory bail in such offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — s. 17A, 18A(i), 27(a), 27B(i), 27(d), 28A

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Drugs and Cosmetics Act
misbranding
criminal procedure
bail conditions
laboratory variance
independent lab report

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
BNSS No. - 9009 of 2026

Atahar Hasan Saiyed @ Saiyed Atahar Hasan
Munvarali .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Arnav Dwivedi, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 83 out of 208)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the
record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 164 of 2025, under Sections 18a(i), 17A,
27(a), 27b(i), 27(d) & 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Police Station -
Hariparvat, District - Agra, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is
maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and
has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the instant
case originated from a complaint instituted by the Drug Inspector, alleging
that three drugs recovered from a retail establishment were manufactured by
the applicant's firm. Samples of the said drugs were subjected to chemical
analysis, wherein one drug, namely 'Safetrin-20' tablets was declared
misbranded under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, on
the ground that the Isotretinoin content was found to be 9.9 mg per tablet
instead of the standard parameter.

5. Learned counsel further emphasizes that the other two sampled drugs,
NABAIL No. 9009 of 2026
2

namely Phosclin Gel (20 gm) and Propnil-AC-2.5 Gel (30 gm), were found
to strictly adhere to the prescribed quality standards. Regarding the 'Safetrin-
20' tablets, it is urged that the deviation is a negligible fraction of 0.1 mg,
which can be safely attributed to standard testing variance or laboratory
tolerance limits. Furthermore, it is submitted that the applicant
independently got the identical batch analyzed by M/s Hiral Labs Limited,
which certified the drug to be of standard quality. The said analysis report
has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit accompanying the
present application.

6. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant has no criminal
history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed,
he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no
criminal history.

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of
the offence, the severity of the prescribed punishment, and particularly the
marginal 0.1 mg testing variance alongside the conflicting report of an
independent laboratory, this Court prima facie finds it a fit case to extend the
benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either
ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail
application of the applicant is allowed.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Atahar Hasan Saiyed @ Saiyed
Atahar Hasan Munvarali, involved in the aforesaid case crime number,
shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing
a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
NABAIL No. 9009 of 2026
3

or tamper with the evidence;
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the
court;
iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned
shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

12. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to
the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming
his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

September 23, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…