MP High Court Rejects Bail of Paediatrician Accused of Prescribing DEG-Laced Cough Syrup That Killed Children
The Jabalpur bench refused bail to Dr. S.S. Thakur, a child specialist accused of prescribing Coldriff cough syrup containing Diethylene Glycol to children below four years, causing multiple deaths in Chhindwara district.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has dismissed the regular bail application of Dr. S.S. Thakur, a child specialist practising in Parasia, District Chhindwara, who has been in custody since 7 March 2026. Dr. Thakur is accused of prescribing “Coldriff” cough syrup to children below the age of four years — a fixed dose combination that laboratory reports showed was contaminated with Diethylene Glycol (DEG) at 46.28% W/V, against a permissible pharmacopoeial limit of 0.1% W/V. Multiple children died from acute kidney failure. Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal, sitting singly, found that the facts of this case were entirely different from the Supreme Court's ruling in Jacob Matthew vs State of Punjab, which the applicant had relied upon, and held that this was not a fit case for bail.
The Charges and the Accused's Position
Crime No. 296/2025 was registered at Police Station Parasia, District Chhindwara, for offences punishable under Sections 105, 276, and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Dr. Thakur filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as his first bail application before the High Court.
Senior Advocate Anil Khare, appearing with Advocate Akshat Arjaria for the applicant, submitted that Dr. Thakur had been rendering medical services in Parasia for more than 45 years and had no connection with co-accused Dr. Praveen Soni or others involved in the handling, distribution, or destruction of the syrup. The defence argued that Dr. Thakur had prescribed Coldriff in good faith and had no knowledge that the particular batch was adulterated or that it would cause deaths.
The defence drew attention to a circular bearing File No. 04-01/2022-DC(Misc.-47) issued by the Directorate General of Health Services, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (FDC Division) on 18 December 2023. That circular, the applicant argued, banned only the fixed dose combination of two medicines — Chlorpheniramine Maleate and Phenylephrine — for children below four years, not the three-medicine combination of Paracetamol + Chlorpheniramine Maleate + Phenylephrine found in Coldriff. The defence further submitted that the deaths were caused not by the fixed dose compound itself but by the adulteration of a poisonous substance — DEG — into the medicine, and that the obligation to print a warning on the wrapper rested with the manufacturer, not the prescribing doctor.
The applicant also pointed out that the chargesheet was initially filed against nine accused persons and his name appeared only in the supplementary chargesheet. He submitted that he had prescribed the syrup on 23 August 2025 and 26 September 2025, before the drug samples were collected from Apna Medical Store on 24 September 2025 and the test report confirming DEG contamination was received on 4 October 2025.
State's Case and the Objector's Submissions
Government Advocate C.M. Tiwari, appearing for the State, countered that laboratory and Drug Department reports conclusively established DEG at 46.28% W/V in the syrup — a level far exceeding the 0.1% W/V pharmacopoeial limit. DEG is a known nephrotoxin, particularly fatal in children, and the cause of death was acute kidney failure and Acute Tubular Necrosis.
The State submitted that the 18 December 2023 CDSCO circular did ban the fixed dose compound Chlorpheniramine Maleate + Phenylephrine for children below four years, and that Dr. Thakur, as a child specialist, prescribed the syrup to children of approximately that age despite this prohibition. The State also relied on the recorded statement of Dr. Thakur's son, Dr. Amit Thakur, who is also a child specialist practising alongside his father in Parasia. Dr. Amit Thakur stated during investigation that he had a telephonic conversation with Dr. Khadse Madam, posted at Nagpur, who informed him that two children from the Parasia region had been admitted to her hospital with kidney problems and advised him to conduct kidney function tests on children. The State argued that the applicant was therefore aware that children were developing Acute Kidney Injury but continued to prescribe the syrup without alerting the Drug Department, competent authority, or hospital administration.
Dr. Manish Tiwari, Head of the Paediatric Department at Government Medical College, Nagpur, had stated during investigation that many children from Chhindwara district were admitted to his hospital with kidney problems, some of whom died and others required ventilator support. He confirmed that the Coldriff syrup contained toxic DEG and that the fixed dose combination of Paracetamol + Chlorpheniramine Maleate + Phenylephrine should not be given to children below four years.
The State also pointed out that bail applications of co-accused Dr. Praveen Soni, Smt. Jyoti Soni, Sourabh Kumar Jain, and Rajesh Kumar Soni had already been dismissed by this Court on merits by a reasoned order dated 17 February 2026 in M.Cr.C. Nos. 47318/2025, 52938/2025, 51142/2025, and 52933/2025 respectively.
Advocate Vikas Sharma, appearing for the objector through video conferencing, submitted that the Central Government's notification of 18 December 2023 specifically prohibited prescription of such cough syrup for children below four years, and that the applicant's conduct showed gross disregard for public safety. He relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs State of Rajasthan and Another, (2022) AIR (SC) 364, Rohit Bishnoi vs The State of Rajasthan and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560, and X vs State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 INSC 909, to urge that granting bail in such a grave matter would seriously undermine public confidence.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Agrawal took into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The court's reasoning rested on three principal findings.
First, Dr. Thakur, as a child specialist, prescribed a fixed dose compound to children below four years of age that had been banned by the government circular of 18 December 2023. The court accepted that this prescription contributed to the deaths of many innocent children and caused harm to public health on a large scale.
Second, the court addressed the applicant's reliance on Jacob Matthew vs State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, and the State Government's circular dated 28 October 2011 directing that criminal cases should not be registered against practitioner doctors without prior enquiry. The court held that the facts and circumstances of the present case were entirely different from those in Jacob Matthew because in this case the report was lodged by a competent authority, namely the Block Medical Officer, not by a private complainant.
Third, the court noted that despite multiple cases appearing in cluster form indicating a drug-related adverse effect, and despite the applicant's awareness through his son that children from the Parasia region were being admitted with kidney problems, no intimation was given by Dr. Thakur to the Drug Department, competent authority, or hospital administration. The court found this failure significant.
The court also noted that the Coldriff syrup contained DEG at 46.28% W/V against a permissible limit of 0.1% W/V, and that the Head of the Paediatric Department at Government Medical College, Nagpur had confirmed that the fixed dose combination should not be given to children below four years. The CDSCO's response to the SDOP Parasia's letter of 29 December 2025 — that the three-medicine combination was still under examination by the expert committee/Drugs Technical Advisory Board — did not, in the court's view, alter the position regarding the banned two-medicine combination.
Outcome
Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal dismissed the bail application. The court directed that the Trial Court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in this order and shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law. The court clarified that all observations were made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.