Delhi HC Rejects Bail To Man Accused Of Producing, Supplying Artificial Anti-Cancer Medicines

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Viphil Jain, accused of manufacturing and supplying counterfeit anti-cancer medicines, citing his role as the kingpin of the operation and a high risk of evidence tampering.

The court noted that the injections allegedly sold by Jain had compromised efficacy, posing serious health risks to patients, including potential progression or relapse of cancer, which could be fatal. Justice Subramonium Prasad stated, “The primary reason for granting bail to other co-accused is that they were merely pawns, while the petitioner is the kingpin of the entire racket.”

Jain, who has a background in pharmacy, was described as fully aware of his actions and willingly involved in this “life-threatening and ill-perceived business.” Releasing him now could enable evidence tampering, the court argued.

Prosecution claims that in March, the Delhi Police Crime Branch received information about Jain procuring empty vials and raw materials from an associate, Parvez Malik. Teams were formed to investigate the syndicate, collaborating with the Drugs Department of the Delhi government.

Jain and another suspect were reportedly apprehended in a Moti Nagar flat while filling empty vials with liquid. Samples taken from the scene were sent to a laboratory for analysis. An FIR was filed, leading to their arrest.

Subsequent raids uncovered significant quantities of counterfeit anti-cancer injections, empty vials, packaging materials, and resulted in the arrest of 12 individuals. Jain’s counsel sought bail based on the argument of parity with other co-accused already granted relief.

However, the court dismissed his plea, emphasizing Jain’s pivotal role in the manufacturing and supply chain, as well as his knowledge of the network and financial trails involved.

It concluded, “If released on bail, the likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence is extremely high. Given his expertise and contacts, the risk of him absconding or reoffending cannot be overlooked.”

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International