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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6031

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
DEVNARAYAN MISHRA, J
KRISH PRATAP ALIAS KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22833 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Nikhil Bhatt
For the Respondents: Shri C.K. Mishra

The court reaffirmed that possession of narcotic drugs exceeding defined quantities disqualifies bail eligibility under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8/21 - M.P. Drugs Control Act, 1949 - Bail application for offences under NDPS - The applicant, arrested for possessing narcotic drugs, argued that only a small quantity was seized, seeking bail - The court relied on precedent tests for determining the meaning of small and commercial quantities - Results of seizures led to denial of bail based on the Act's provisions. (Paras 1, 3, 10, 12)

(B) Judicial Precedent - The acceptance of weight/volume measures for narcotics was grounded in previous rulings - Cited several relevant judgments that informed current case's parameters - Courts established that mixtures cannot exclude neutral substances in quantity calculations, affirming legal validity of interpretative norms established in jurisprudence. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was in custody since 19.03.2025 for possessing a total of 519 injections including a significant quantity of Buprenorphine, an argument raised regarding classification as a small quantity under relevant narcotics legislation.

Findings of Court:
Application dismissed due to the quantity of drugs exceeding small quantity limits defined where ready replenishment and concurrent precedents reinforce denial of bail.

Issues: Court examined adequacy of the seizure's configuration per NDPS standards against known ratios for narcotics, particularly in liquid formulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Decisions cited underscoring the principle that measurement of narcotic content must follow specific criteria where mixtures incorporate secondary substances and past court findings reinforce this position, enforcing bounds of bail eligibility.

Result: The bail application is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application filed for bail under ndps. (Para 1 , 2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22833 of 2025 KRISH PRATAP ALIAS KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for applicant.

Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for State.

Heard on : 19.08.2025 Pronounced on : 26.08.2025 ORDER This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.101 of 2025 registered at Police Station - Kotwali Shahdol, District - Shahdol (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8 /21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 5 /13 of the M.P. Drugs Control Act, 1949 . The applicant is in custody since 19.03.2025.

2. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that applicant Krishna Pratap @ Krishna Pratap Singh s/o Kunwar singh was arrested on 19.03.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 8 /21 of the NDPS Act and from Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ his possession NRX Buprenorphine Hydrochloride Injection 0.3 mg total 45 ampoules have been recovered. In the same way Pheniramine Maleate Injection 2 ml total 29 ampoules and Promethazine Hydrochloride Injection 2 ml total 445 ampoules, total 519 injections have been seized. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that except NRX Buprenorphine Hydrochloride Injection, other injections do not come in the purview of narcotic drugs as defined in the scheduled annexed with the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that only 45 ampoules of NRX Buprenorphine Hydrochloride Injection have been seized from the possession of applicant, hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for applicant to strengthen his argument has further submitted that 1 gm Buprenorphine is small quantity and 20 gm is commercial quantity and relying on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Kerala High Court in the case of Salam s/o Abdul Kader vs. Union of India in WP (C) No.3934 of 2005 vide order dated 30.07.2007, particularly para No.2 in which it has been mentioned that "Buprenorphine" injection or "Buprenorphine" Hydrochloride injection is a sterile solution of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride in water for injection and the standards for the same are given in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, 1996. As per Indian Pharmacopoeia, 1996 small quantity and commercial quantity of Buprenorphine is fixed as follows :

5. As per the Indian Pharmacopoeia standards one gram of Buprenorphine is 3333.33 milliliters when it is in liquid form for the purpose of small quantity. For the purpose of commercial quantity 20 grams of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ Buprenorphine is 66666.60 milliliters when it is in liquid form.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has further relied on the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Manga vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M No.8308/2025 dated

18.03.2025 in which Hon'ble the High Court has approved this principle.

7. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the same principle has been followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Shukla vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.Cr.C. No.50434/2024 dated 09.12.2024, in the case of Deep Chandra Agrahari vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41536 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024 by Hon'ble the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Mahesh @ Manish vs. State of Haryana passed in CRM-M No.59377/2022 dated 16.10.2023 by Hon'ble the High Court of Punjab and Haryanain in which this factor has been considered, in the case of Mohammad Farid s/o Mohammad Hallem vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer passed in M.Cr.C. No.6426 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025 and by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shabna

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