Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by Vibhor Rana, an accused in Phensedyl Cough Syrup Racket/ Codeine Cough Syrup Case, a Single Judge Bench of Karunesh Singh Pawar, J., allowed the application. The Court stated that Vibhor Rana was not named in the FIR, and his name has surfaced only in the confessional statements of co-accused. Further, there was no recovery from Vibhor Rana, and the undertaking was also given that he shall not leave Lucknow during the period of bail. Thus, the Court found that the present case was fit for grant of interim bail, accordingly, granted to Vibhor Rana in Codeine Cough Syrup Racket case.
Background
The accused herein, Vibhor Rana, owned a firm that was a super distributor of Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., and he was a licensed distributor engaged in the distribution of pharmaceutical drugs manufactured by Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. He holds valid licenses under Rule 61(1) and Rule 61(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The prosecution alleged that the co-accused established bogus firms under different names and that transactions of these firms were carried out by accused Vibhor Rana and Vishal Rana using the bank IDs and passwords of their associates and employees, thereby facilitating the illegal sale of the cough syrup. During the investigation of Maruti Medicos, it was allegedly found that Om Medicos, Abhi Pharma, Ashu Medicos, and Vibhor Rana had transactions with G.R. Trading. It was further alleged that Vibhor Rana and Vishal Rana were involved in the illegal smuggling of the cough syrup to various parts of the country and Bangladesh.
Vibhor Rana contended that he had been implicated solely based on the confessional statements of two co-accused persons, and no recovery had been made from him. Additionally, the cough syrup was recovered from his co-accused, a wholesaler and owner of the truck in which the syrup was found, who had already been granted bail. Similarly, two other co-accused had also been granted bail.
Vibhor Rana also contended that a Co-ordinate Division Bench had quashed the entire proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), holding that the Phensedyl cough syrup does not fall within the definition of a narcotic drug and that dealings in the said drug are not governed by the NDPS Act. In another case arising out of Malda, West Bengal, titled Vibhor Rana v. Union of India1 (‘Vibhor Rana case’), he was discharged on the ground that no offence under the NDPS Act was made out. He further contended that the present case has been wrongly projected as one involving international smuggling, without there being any recovery of the cough syrup from outside the country.
Analysis and Decision
Considering the judgment in Vibhor Rana case (supra), the material available on record, the fact that Vibhor Rana was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced only in co-accused’s, absence of any recovery from him, and his undertaking to not leave Lucknow during the bail period, the Court found the case fit for grant of interim bail. The Court also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674, wherein it was held that where allegations pertain to offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, registration of an FIR by the police is not warranted unless a separate cognizable offence is made out.
Accordingly, the application was allowed, and Vibhor Rana was granted bail conditional upon furnishing of a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.
The matter was listed for 05-01-2026.
Update
After the grant of interim bail by the Court vide order dated 18 December 2025, and before the next date of hearing, the Investigating Officer added Section 419 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 NDPS Act to the charge sheets. Aggrieved, the accused persons, Vishal Singh and Vibhor Rana, filed the present bail applications and continued the aforementioned bail application, which was allowed in favour of Vibhor Rana.
In these applications, the Court also rejected the contention that the addition of charges under the NDPS Act was in derogation of the law laid down in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 17 SCC 326, as in the said case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the production warrant obtained by the Investigating Officer from the competent Court. Similarly, in the present case, the Trial Court, on an application moved by the prosecution for adding the relevant Sections under the NDPS Act, amended the custody warrant and incorporated Sections 8-C, 21-C, and 29 of the NDPS Act, read with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B IPC against both accused persons. Thus, the Court held that the submission that no permission of the Court was sought while adding Sections under the NDPS Act was factually misconceived and contrary to the record.
The Court noted that according to the State, as many as 98 FIRs have already been registered alleging large-scale diversion of cough syrups containing codeine. The allegation against the accused persons was that they were operating an organized syndicate on a large scale within Uttar Pradesh as well as in other States, including alleged smuggling to Bangladesh. This aspect was noticed by the Trial Court while rejecting their bail applications vide order dated 6 December 2025.
The Court further noted that the allegation against both the accused persons was of diversion of cough syrup containing codeine in huge quantities. Allegedly, the accused persons had a nexus with the co-accused persons, and were the kingpins of an organized crime syndicate operating across several States.
Thus, considering the gravity of the allegations, the scale of the alleged organized syndicate, and the fact that the investigation was still ongoing under the supervision of a senior officer in a Special Investigating Team, the Court rejected all the bail applications. However, liberty was granted to the accused to revive their prayer for bail after completion of the investigation and submission of the police report.
[Vibhor Rana v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8118, decided on 18-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Nipun Singh, Advocates Naman Aggarwal, Priyanshu Shukla, Abhinav Srivastava, and Anuj Dayal
For the respondent: Government Advocate and AGA Alok Tewari
1. C.R.R. No. 1620 of 2024
