HC grants bail to pharma MD in 720 kg Tramadol export case

MUMBAI: Bombay High Court grants bail to Safe Formulation MD Sanagala Sridhar Reddy in Tramadol export case, citing prolonged incarceration and insufficient evidence.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday granted bail to the managing director of Safe Formulation Pvt Ltd, arrested in April 2023 for allegedly exporting Tramadol Hydrochloride, a prescription opioid pain medication used to treat moderate to severe pain in adults, by falsely declaring it as Magnesium Citrate and Calcium Carbonate. The court granted bail to him with stringent conditions, citing prolonged incarceration and lack of conclusive evidence.

HC grants bail to pharma MD in 720 kg Tramadol export case

Based on an intelligence input, the Central Intelligence Unit (CIU) had intercepted an export consignment from Safe Formulation for South Sudan on February 25, 2023 at the air cargo complex at Sahar, that contained 720 kg of ‘Tamol-X-225’ (Tramadol Hydrochloride) labelled as Magnesium Citrate and Calcium Carbonate.

Sanagala Sridhar Reddy, the managing director of Safe Formulation, was indicted in the case as he was responsible for all decisions related to the manufacturing and shipping of Tramadol.

Advocate Kushal Mor, appearing for Reddy, submitted that his indictment is based on surmises and conjectures. He claimed that Reddy had obtained the requisite permission from the government, including a licence to possess narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. He also informed the court of Reddy’s prolonged incarceration, highlighting that he has been in custody since April 20, 2023.

A single-judge bench of N.J Jamadar ascertained Reddy’s role to be premised on his alleged knowledge of the illegal export of the contraband substance. However, considering his prolonged incarceration, the court granted him bail on furnishing a personal bond of one lakh, with one or two sureties in the like amount.

“Having regard to the nature of accusation, number of accused and number of witnesses, which the prosecution may be required to examine, it is extremely unlikely that the trial can be concluded within a reasonable period. Thus, this incarceration of 22 months, without a realistic prospect of conclusion of the trial in near future, also weighs in,” the court said.