The court established that the recovery of contraband below commercial quantity and procedural non-compliance may warrant bail irrespective of serious charges.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshul, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Anshul, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

02.08.2025 in N.D.P.S Case No. 83 of 2025 arising out of Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 170 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 02.08.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 21 (c), 22(c), 25 and

29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.

3. Recovery is of 19 liters of Codeine Syrup.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that altogether 190 bottles of Codeine Phosphate & triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup (WISCOF), each bottles contains 100 ml each was recovered from the place of occurrence and as per allegation in the FIR, the accused persons have thrown the syrup and fled away from the place of occurrence but they were apprehended and they have disclosed their name. He further submits that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and it appears that the recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity. Hence, there is no embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet. The petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2025.

5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the petitioner has clean antecedent and that the recovered contraband is less than the commercial quantity, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Session Judge, Supaul in connection with Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 170 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)