The Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kasganj, has granted bail to a pharmaceutical company director facing prosecution under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, after noting that the complainant drug inspector described the offence as bailable and did not oppose the application.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava passed the order on October 17, 2026, allowing the first regular bail application of Satyam Goyal, a director of Astron Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Meerut. The court directed his release on a personal bond of ₹25,000 and two sureties of the same amount.
Buy Now: Legal & Taxation Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines – September 2026
The proceedings arise from a complaint associated with Police Station Ganjdundwara in Kasganj district. Goyal had been in custody since October 14, 2026. satyam goyal
According to the submissions recorded in the order, the case concerned samples of medicines that included Joycef 200 LB DT tablets manufactured by the company.
An analyst’s report dated April 25, 2023, was stated to have found 157 mg of cefixime in the tablet sample against the declared quantity of 200 mg. The defence described this as approximately 78% of the stated content and disputed the basis for prosecuting the applicant over the result.
Lakshay Kumar, the counsel for the applicant argued that the company had used the prescribed quantity of raw material during manufacture. He also contended that the medicine’s heat-sensitive properties and the conditions in which it was stored after leaving the manufacturer could affect its potency.
These contentions were advanced in support of bail. The order does not finally determine whether storage conditions caused the reported deficiency or whether the medicine complied with the applicable quality standards.
The defence also raised objections concerning the opportunity to have the sample examined by the Central Drugs Laboratory under Section 25(4) of the Act.
It argued that the statutory procedure had not been properly followed and that the applicant’s opportunity to challenge the analyst’s report had been affected. The applicant additionally relied on regulatory guidelines concerning drugs reported as not of standard quality and submitted that the reported cefixime content required consideration in that context.
The bail application referred to the company’s manufacturing licence, purchase records, invoices and other business documents. The defence maintained that the company operated a licensed pharmaceutical business and denied deliberate wrongdoing.
The applicant further submitted that he had appeared before the trial court following the issuance of a warrant and sought regular bail.
A principal legal issue raised by the defence was whether an allegation under Section 27(d) attracted the stringent bail restrictions contained in Section 36AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The application referred to the distinction between Section 27(d) and the offences expressly covered by Section 36AC, which addresses specified offences involving adulterated or spurious drugs.
The defence maintained that the offence alleged against Goyal was bailable. It also relied on a Patna High Court order dated July 15, 2026, in Amod Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25902 of 2026, as supporting that position.
The Kasganj court recorded that the prosecution did not dispute the defence’s submission regarding the bailable nature of the alleged offence.
The complainant drug inspector appeared during the hearing. The court expressly noted that he described the offence as bailable and did not oppose Goyal’s bail application.
After hearing the applicant’s counsel and the Assistant District Government Counsel and examining the record, the court found sufficient grounds to grant bail.
In reaching that conclusion, it referred to the overall facts and circumstances, the seriousness of the case, the applicant’s alleged involvement and role, and the punishment associated with the offence.
The court allowed First Bail Application No. 1507 of 2026 and directed Goyal’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 and two satisfactory sureties of an equivalent amount before the court concerned.
It required him to comply with the bond conditions, refrain from unlawful activity or repeating the alleged offence, and avoid influencing or threatening any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
Goyal must attend court on the dates fixed, either personally or through counsel, as permitted by the order. The court also directed compliance with the applicable bond requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The order provides for legal action if bail is misused or the applicant fails to appear.
The decision grants release during the pending prosecution. It does not resolve the allegations concerning the medicine’s quality, the defence objections to the testing process, or the applicant’s criminal liability.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
