Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses Bail To Pediatrician In Coldriff Cough Syrup Death Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant bail to a senior pediatrician accused in the Coldriff cough syrup tragedy, observing that the allegations relate to the prescription of a prohibited drug combination to children below four years of age and that the incident allegedly resulted in the deaths of several children and caused large-scale harm to public health.

Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal passed the order while dismissing the first regular bail application filed by Dr. S.S. Thakur, a child specialist from Parasia in Chhindwara district, who has been in custody since March 7, 2026. The case arises out of Crime No. 296 of 2025 registered at Parasia Police Station for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Appearing for the applicant, Senior Advocate Anil Khare, assisted by Advocate Akshat Arjaria, argued that Dr. Thakur had been serving as a pediatrician in the region for over 45 years and had no role in the manufacture, distribution or destruction of the allegedly contaminated Coldriff cough syrup. It was contended that he prescribed the medicine in good faith and had no knowledge that the batch in question contained any poisonous substance. Counsel further submitted that the deaths were caused by Diethylene Glycol (DEG) contamination and not by the drug combination itself.

The defence also argued that the combination of Paracetamol, Chlorpheniramine Maleate and Phenylephrine contained in the syrup had not been specifically banned by the government. Reliance was placed on various judicial precedents, including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, to contend that criminal liability cannot be fastened on a medical practitioner without proper inquiry into allegations of medical negligence.

Opposing the plea, Government Advocate C.M. Tiwari submitted that laboratory reports conclusively established the presence of Diethylene Glycol in the syrup at levels far exceeding permissible limits. According to the prosecution, DEG is a known nephrotoxin and was responsible for causing acute kidney failure in affected children. The State further alleged that despite knowledge that children in the region were developing serious kidney complications, the applicant continued prescribing the syrup and failed to alert regulatory authorities.

Advocate Vikas Sharma, appearing for the objector, argued that the case involved the deaths of innocent children and raised serious concerns regarding public safety. He contended that despite a government notification prohibiting the use of the relevant fixed-dose combination for children below four years of age, the medicine continued to be prescribed. Granting bail in such circumstances, he argued, would undermine public confidence in the justice system.

After considering the rival submissions and the material collected during the investigation, the High Court found that the allegations against the applicant were grave in nature. The Court noted that the applicant, being a child specialist, allegedly prescribed a fixed-dose compound to children below four years despite a government circular issued on December 18, 2023.

Rejecting the plea, the Court observed, “the applicant who is the Child Specialist Doctor has prescribed the fixed dose compound to the children below the age of 4 years which was banned by the circular issued by the Government on 18.12.2023, due to which many innocent children have been died.” The Court further noted that the alleged cough syrup had “caused harm to the public health in a large scale.”

The Court also distinguished the facts of the present case from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jacob Mathew, observing that the prosecution had been initiated on the basis of a report lodged by a competent authority. Holding that the matter did not warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of the accused, the Court concluded that it was “not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant.”

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail plea and would not affect the merits of the trial.

Case Title: Dr. S.S. Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: May 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal