New Delhi [India], August 20 : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea of Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) President Dr. Montu Kumar Patel seeking quashing of an FIR in an alleged bribery case.
On July 23, the Rouse Avenue court, while granting anticipatory bail to Patel had noted that the allegations of bribery were not supported by cogent material against the accused. Justice Arun Monga issued notice to the CBI and sought response from the agency.
The high court has also issued notice on an interim plea seeking a stay on proceedings before the trial court. The matter was listed sometime in November.
Patel has moved to the High Court seeking quashing of FIR on the ground that sanction under section 17 (A) was not obtained before inquiry against him.
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa along with Tushar Giri appeared for Patel. An inquiry was initiated against Patel in May 2023 without obtaining the sanction for the same. Even at the time of hearing on anticipatory bail before the trial court the sanction order was not produced.
Thereafter, they registered an FIR in 2025, Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa argued. On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Anupam Sharma opposed the contentions and said that they have obtained the sanction in June 2025. The FIR has been lodged thereafter. For Inquiry sanction is not required.
Senior advocate Pahwa submitted that there is an order of Supreme Court which says sanction is required for conducting an inquiry. After hearing the submissions the High court issued notice on the petition.
"It is directed that in the event of arrest of accused/ applicant Dr. Montu Kumar Patel, the IO shall release him upon applicant/ accused furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds in sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the satisfaction of investigation officer," Special Judge Changotra (CBI) ordered on July 23 while granting anticipatory bail.
While granting bail the court emphasised, "The Courts are under bounden duty to strike a fair balance relating to the protection of personal liberty of an individual / right of investigating agency for fair investigation."
"In my considered opinion, this Court will fail in its duty, if the personal liberty of the applicant /accused is not protected in view of the aforementioned proposition of law and the facts at hand, specially when the allegations are prima facie not supported by any cogent material," Special Judge had said in the bail order.
The court noted that serious allegation was levelled that the present case involved bribe of the amount of Rs. 5000 crores, but upon the query of the court IO stated that the said amount was arrived at the instance of media reports / secret information.
"Further, perusal of case diary of IO regarding the interrogation of applicant shows that he was not confronted with the aforementioned facts. The said facts on the face of it make the allegations qua the above stated quantum highly doubtful," the court had noted.
After hearing the submissions of the CBI and senior counsel for accused, the court said that it has to be said that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate even a single set of allegations levelled under the PC Act against applicant.
The court had noted that the FIR shows that all the allegations have been levelled against the applicant, even though all the decisions were taken by the Executive Body or Central Council consisting of several other members.
The accused has already joined the investigation and no circumstance has been shown which necessitates or requires his custodial interrogation, the court observed.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, counsel for accused Montu Kumar Patel argued that the investigating officer (IO) is intentionally levelling allegations of accused having amassed huge amount of wealth without even an inch of evidence to support it.
As per FIR, a cash sum of Rs. 10. 95 lakh by way of banking transactions were given by accused Vinod Kumar Tiwari to accused Santosh Jha, but later on in the reply the IO whimsically mentioned a sum of Rs. 5000 crores and today it has been reduced to a sum of Rs. 118 crores, senior counsel Pahwa argued.
The counsels for CBI had vehemently opposed the bail application. They argued that the accused did not cooperate in the investigation. He gave evasive replies. The accused had formatted one of the mobile phones and he threw the second mobile phone. Accused Vinod Kumar Tiwari did not join the investigation.
It was further argued that during the investigation of properties worth Rs. 118 crores have been found in the name of accused/ his relatives.
As per allegations, bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash and additional sum of Rs. 95,000 through banking channels was given to one Santosh Kumar Jha, a primary teacher in U. P. for managing the inspection/ obtaining approval and for arranging infrastructural facilities (books, setting up of lab, faculty and approval of PCI), but there is no evidence of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs, senior advocate had argued.