Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Doctor & Wife Accused Of Prescribing Coldriff Cough Syrup Causing Death Of Over 26 Children

The Court was hearing applications for regular bail in connection with a criminal case for offences under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal observed: “…present applicant has prescribed the fixed dose compound to the children which was banned by the circular issued by the Government on 18.12.2023; the senior doctor Dr. Praveen Khapekar had informed and cautioned the applicant about the incident of 1998, wherein, due to DEG-contaminated cough syrup, 33 children were died and maybe this time also, there is possibility of same reaction, even then the applicant continued to prescribe the alleged cough syrup, hence, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant”.

Background

According to the prosecution, the case originated from a complaint lodged by a Block Medical Officer alleging that several children developed kidney failure after being prescribed a particular cough syrup and were referred to a medical college hospital, where some of them died.

The prosecution alleged that the syrup supplied from a medical store owned by the doctor’s wife contained DEG at a concentration of 46.28% W/V, far exceeding the permissible pharmacopoeial limit of 0.1% W/V, and that DEG is a well-known nephrotoxin capable of causing fatal renal injury in children.

It was further alleged that the doctor prescribed the cough syrup to pediatric patients and that the medicine was dispensed through the co-accused’s medical store without proper billing, batch records, or traceability. The prosecution also claimed that the accused substituted the prescribed drug with another formulation and received commission and profit from its sale.

The defence contended that the applicants were innocent, that the medicine had been manufactured under licence by a pharmaceutical company, and that the doctor had no knowledge of adulteration. It was also argued that the medicine had been in use for many years and was banned only subsequently.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the material placed on record. It noted that laboratory reports indicated the presence of toxic DEG in the syrup allegedly prescribed and sold, and that more than 26 minor children had died, suggesting large-scale public health harm.

The Bench considered the prosecution’s contention that the doctor had prior knowledge of potential danger. It recorded that a senior paediatrician had warned the applicant about a past incident in Delhi in 1998 in which 33 children had died due to DEG-contaminated cough syrup, yet the applicant allegedly continued prescribing the medicine even after such caution.

The Court also took note of allegations that the applicants had received commission from the sale of the syrup and that evidence relating to its distribution had been destroyed. It further observed that the case differed materially from precedents relied upon by the defence concerning prosecution of medical practitioners, because in the present case the complaint had been lodged by a competent authority and prima facie material indicated serious wrongdoing.

Another factor considered was the allegation that a fixed-dose compound banned for children below four years under a government circular dated 18.12.2023 had nevertheless been prescribed, suggesting disregard for regulatory restrictions.

Taking these factors cumulatively, the Court held that the allegations reflected grave misconduct affecting public health on a large scale and that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case against the applicants.

Taking note that “more than 26 innocent children below the age of 4-5 years have died and the alleged cough syrup caused harm to the public health on a large scale, and the fact that he also received commission for prescribing the aforesaid cough syrup and other co-accused destroyed the evidence regarding cough syrup to save the present applicant (doctor)”, the Court concluded that bail cannot be granted to the applicant.

The Court also considered the bail plea of the co-accused wife of the doctor, who was stated to be the proprietor of the medical store from which the cough syrup was allegedly supplied. Upon examining the case record, the Court noted allegations that she had sold “Coldriff Syrup” in place of the prescribed medicine and that there existed no billing or documentary record of such sale.

It further took into account the prosecution’s claim that evidence relating to the distribution of the syrup had been destroyed, which, if established, would indicate deliberate concealment of material facts relevant to the investigation.

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the Court observed that the case involved allegations of large-scale public health harm resulting in the deaths of more than 26 children of tender age, and that the role attributed to the applicant could not be treated as peripheral.

In view of the gravity of the accusations, the alleged tampering with evidence, and the seriousness of the consequences attributed to the sale of the syrup, the Court held that the matter was not a fit case for the grant of bail to her at this stage.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged role of the applicants, and the magnitude of harm caused, the case was not fit for the grant of bail.

The bail applications were accordingly dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the adjudication of the bail petitions and would not affect the merits of the trial, which the trial court was directed to decide independently in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Dr Praveen Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Smt. Jyoti Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:13368)

Appearances

Applicants: Shashank Shekhar, Sr. Adv. with Bhoopesh Tiwari, Adv.

Respondents: Harpreet Singh Ruprah, AAG with C.M. Tiwari, GA and Advocates Aakash Malpani, K.K. Pandey and Aditya Parashar

Click here to read/download Judgment