The Madhya Pradesh High Court, sitting at Jabalpur, considered two separate bail applications filed by Shailesh C Pandiya, the registered proprietor of a firm that supplied diethylene glycol, and Satish Verma, a medical representative engaged in the sale of packaged Coldriff cough syrup. The applications arose from allegations that the syrup, contaminated with diethylene glycol, caused the deaths of numerous children in the State.

In the matter of Shailesh C Pandiya v State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC-16355-2026), the counsel for the State opposed the bail plea, contending that the applicant had supplied a toxic substance used in the manufacture of the cough syrup. The bench, comprising Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, examined the factual matrix presented. It observed that the primary allegation against Pandiya related to the supply of diethylene glycol. The court noted that diethylene glycol is an article that can be employed for food‑grade, industrial and pharmaceutical purposes. The record showed that Pandiya had supplied the substance only for food‑grade use and was not involved in its manufacture or in any pharmaceutical activity.

Upon considering these facts, the bench recorded that the applicant was neither the manufacturer of the contaminated syrup nor had he supplied a sub‑standard article. The court concluded that there was no justification to keep him in custody during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, the bench allowed the bail application, stating: “Having considered the facts that applicant is neither manufacturer neither article has been supplied is sub standard, this Court finds it fit to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed.” No opinion on the merits of the underlying offence was expressed.

In the parallel matter of Satish Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC-17476-2026), the medical representative argued that he merely sold the manufacturer’s sealed packs of Coldriff cough syrup and possessed no knowledge of the safety or composition of the medicine. The State’s counsel again opposed bail, asserting that Verma’s role in the distribution chain rendered him liable. The bench, after reviewing the circumstances surrounding Verma’s involvement, found that the material placed on record did not establish any active participation in the adulteration process or any awareness of the toxic content.

The court therefore determined that releasing Verma on bail was appropriate. It recorded the order: “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it fit to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed.” As with Pandiya’s application, the bench refrained from commenting on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The High Court’s approach in these bail matters contrasts with its earlier rulings concerning other individuals linked to the same incident. In February 2026, the court denied bail to Dr Praveen Soni, a child specialist doctor and pharmacist, who was accused of prescribing and selling the contaminated syrup. While rejecting Soni’s bail plea, the court noted that the syrup had led to the death of thirty‑three children in 1998 due to diethylene glycol contamination. The court emphasized the gravity of the allegations against medical professionals who, unlike the supplier and the medical representative, were directly involved in the prescription and dispensation of the drug.

Earlier, in November 2025, the High Court had dismissed an appeal filed by a distributor of Coldriff cough syrup who challenged the sealing of his shop and the cancellation of his drug licence. The division bench described the episode as “the most shocking case in medical history”. Additionally, the Chhindwara Court, in October 2025, had dismissed the bail application of Dr Praveen Soni, reinforcing the view that those occupying positions of medical responsibility faced stricter scrutiny.

The present orders reflect the bench’s effort to balance the liberty of the accused against the exigencies of the investigation, while making clear that the grant of bail does not constitute any finding on the substantive allegations. The matters remain pending for trial, and the State retains the opportunity to prove its case on the merits.