SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
 Nilendra Kumar Karan @ Nilendra, S/o Rajbanshi Lal Karan – Petitioner
Versus 
The State of Bihar - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54100 of 2025
Decided On : 27-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP

Possession of cough syrup containing codeine qualifies as a narcotic under the NDPS Act, with strict bail conditions imposed that were not satisfied in this case.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 21, 22, and 37 - Bail application in relation to possession of commercial quantity of intoxicating cough syrup containing codeine - Petitioner contends seizure does not violate the Act, referencing judicial precedents on non-narcotic status of low-codeine products - Court affirms applicability of NDPS Act, and emphasizes grounds for bail are not met, invoking Section 37's strict conditions. (Paras 43, 46)

(B) Bail - The court held that the preconditions under Section 37 must be cumulatively satisfied for bail under NDPS, and the burden is on the accused to demonstrate that he is not likely to commit the offense. (Paras 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was found in possession of 40 bottles of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate but has contested its classification as a narcotic drug under the NDPS Act. The Special Court previously denied his anticipatory bail based on the quantity found.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Special Court's ruling, stating the petitioner does not have authorization for possession in the quantity found, which qualifies as 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act.

Issues: Whether the cough syrup is classified under NDPS and the implications for bail under Section 37.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the NDPS Act applies to cough syrups with codeine, emphasizing the serious implications under commercial quantities criterion; thus, both Section 21 and 37 conditions were not satisfied for granting bail.

Result: Petition for bail rejected.

Table of Content
1. bail petition filed under ndps. (Para 1 , 2)
2. anticipatory bail rejection based on evidence. (Para 3 , 4)
3. defense argues non-compliance of ndps provisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11)
4. discussion of applicable legal provisions. (Para 12 , 15 , 18)
5. definition of manufactured drugs under ndps. (Para 21 , 30 , 34)
6. insufficient grounds for bail, facts evaluated. (Para 41 , 43)
7. petition for bail rejected. (Para 46)

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar, J.

Introduction

The present Criminal Miscellaneous petition has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for regular bail in connection with Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 64 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 24 of 2025, dated 19.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S., Act, pending in the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court, N.D.P.S. Act, Madhubani.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the written report of the SSB personnel, is that the informant along with five S.S.B, personnel were on check-post duty. They got information that some intoxicating medicine is being carried by a four wheeler of silver colour. Subsequently, they intercepted one such vehicle going from India to Nepal and in the presence of the driver and one person sitting in the car, the vehicle was searched, and hence, the intoxicating medicine was recovered from below the seat of the car, the medicine comprising forty bottles of 100 ml each containing codeine phosphate & Triprolidine Hydrochloride cough syrup, oxerex, bearing B. NO ONTS-1663. The persons who were present in the car were the Petitioner and co-accused, Giban Patal. The vehicle Tata Indigo Manza (Four wheeler)-01 bearing Reg No. BaE 2295, Eng. No. 101A20000557474, CH NO-MAT613421FPA04429, and the recovered one mobile phone OPPO RAENO-8 5G along with two sim cards bearing IMEI-86539206416654, IMEI-2- 865392064126647 were also seized. The two persons, including the Petitioner and the co-accused, Giban Patal, who were found in the car were also arrested and FIR was lodged against them.

Rejection of Anticipatory Bail Petition of the petitioner by learned Special Court NDPS, Madhubani

3. Prior to moving this Court, the petitioner had preferred anticipatory bail petition before the Special Court, NDPS, Madhubani. However, his anticipatory bail application was rejected by learned Special Court, holding that 40 bottles of cough syrup have been recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner and the amount of the contraband constitutes commercial quantity in the light of Hira Singh v. Union of India , as reported in (2020) 20 SCC 272 . It has been also found by learned Special Court that in the case diary, the witnesses who have been examined, have supported the prosecution case against the petitioner and hence, in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, his anticipatory bail petition was rejected.

4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the prosecution against the Petitioner is vitiated in view of the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S., Act at the time of making search and seizure.

6. He further submits that the alleged contraband recovered from the Petitioner is not a narcotic drug and psychotropic substance punishable under the N.D.P.S., Act. It is cough syrup containing less than 2.5 per cent codeine of the total preparation. Hence, it is an essential drug, not punishable under the N.D.P.S., Act. At the most, the Petitioner may be prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In this context, he refers to and relies upon Vibhor Rana v. Union of India , 2021 SCC OnLine All 908.

7. In Vibhor Rana case (supra), Allahabad High Court was seized with the writ petition, involving question w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top